Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Samantha MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deborah KNAAN; James Cherrette; Stephen Watson; Does, 1 through 10, inclusive; County of Los Angeles, Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Samantha Martin appeals from the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment in her lawsuit against former Deputy District Attorney Deborah Knaan and the County of Los Angeles. Because the facts are known to the parties, we do not repeat them here.
I
The district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of Knaan on Martin’s Fourth Amendment claim. Martin claims that Knaan caused Martin to be arrested without probable cause when, in support of an application for a body attachment warrant, Knaan filed a declaration that allegedly contained false statements and omitted material facts. The record, however, reveals no such false statements or material omissions, so Martin has failed to show a Fourth Amendment violation.
II
Nor did the district court err by granting summary judgment in favor of Knaan on Martin’s Fourteenth Amendment claim. Martin provides no authority for the proposition that the constitutional right to procedural due process requires a pre-arrest hearing. As Martin does not argue that the evidentiary hearing afforded to her under California Penal Code § 1332 was constitutionally insufficient, she has failed to show that such process violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Martin’s other claimed violations of the Fourteenth Amendment—namely, that Knaan failed to observe Martin’s rights under California Penal Code § 1219(b) and “Marsy’s Law,” Cal. Const. art. I, § 28(b)—are waived because Martin did not raise such arguments before the district court. See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (“We may decline to reach an issue if it was not raised sufficiently for the trial court to rule on it.” (internal quotation marks omitted) ).
III
Finally, the district court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of the County on Martin’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, since she has not shown a genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a constitutional violation.
AFFIRMED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-55769
Decided: December 19, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)