Sims

(PS) Petersen v. Sims

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 26, 20201:19-cv-00138California821 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KYLE PETERSEN, No. 1:19-cv-00138-DAD-EPG Plaintiff, v. REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL BRIEFING

CONCERNING A STAY OF THIS ACTION

ANTHONY SIMS, JR. and NICHOLAS

TORRES,

15 Defendants. 16 This Bivens action is proceeding on Plaintiff Kyle Petersen’s (“Plaintiff”) claims that Defendants Anthony Sims, Jr. and Nicholas Torres (“Defendants”) conducted an unconstitutional warrantless search of his cellular telephones that were initially searched and seized by his parole officer. (ECF Nos. 9, 13 & 14). Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. (ECF No. 46). One basis for Defendants’ motion to dismiss is that they are immune from liability based on qualified immunity. (ECF No. 46-1 at 10-14). Defendants argue that they properly searched the phone without a warrant under United States v. Burnette, 698 F.2d 1038, 1049 (9th Cir. 1983), because the initial search by the parole officer was constitutional and the phone remained in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.