# Wayne Wright v. Charles Beck

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 1, 2020

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4638625

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 1, 2020
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4638625

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 1 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WAYNE WILLIAM WRIGHT, No. 19-55084

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No.
2:15-cv-05805-R-PJW
v.

CHARLES L. BECK; et al., MEMORANDUM*

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 1, 2020
Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ, CALLAHAN, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Wayne Wright appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in

favor of Defendants-Appellees on his Fourth Amendment claim brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983.1 The district court concluded the individually named Defendants-

Appellees were entitled to qualified immunity. Reviewing de novo, Mendiola–

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
1
In a separately filed opinion, we address Wright’s Fourteenth Amendment due
process claim. Because the facts and procedural history are outlined there, we
need not recount them here.
Martinez v. Arpaio, 836 F.3d 1239, 1247 (9th Cir. 2016), we affirm.

Although our decision in Brewster v. Beck, 859 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir.

2017), may suggest that the government might violate the Fourth Amendment by

interfering with one’s property even after conducting a lawful seizure, we decided

Brewster three years after the allegedly unlawful conduct here. It thus fails to

show the law was clearly established at the time the Los Angeles Police

Department officers destroyed Wright’s firearms. Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S.

731, 741 (2011) (stating law must be clearly established “at the time of the

challenged conduct”).

Our earlier cases also fail to show the law was “clearly established” because

they involve different facts. See, e.g., Jessop v. City of Fresno, 936 F.3d 937 (9th

Cir. 2019), pet. for cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 2793 (May 18, 2020). For example,

both United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984), and Lavan v. City of Los

Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012), involved warrantless seizures, unlike here.

Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 113, 120–21 & n.3 (1984); Lavan, 693 F.3d at 1032-33.

We thus cannot conclude that the law was “clearly established” that the

Fourth Amendment protected Wright’s interest against an unreasonable

interference with his property.2

2
Because the law was not clearly established, we do not address whether Wright’s
Fourth Amendment interest was violated. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223,
236 (2009).

2
AFFIRMED.

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4638625. Public record. Not legal advice.