The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 06 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
THEO DELIGIANNIS, No. 10-55595
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:06-cv-00720-DOC-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CITY OF ANAHEIM; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 21, 2012 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Theo Deligiannis appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated various
constitutional rights in connection with the towing of his vehicle. We have
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Stoot v. City of Everett,
582 F.3d 910, 918 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Deligiannis’s
Fourth Amendment and procedural due process claims on the basis of qualified
immunity because, at the time of the incident, it was not clearly established
whether Deligiannis was entitled to a warrant or a pre-seizure hearing before
defendants seized his vehicle under California statute for failure to pay multiple
parking tickets. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 243-44 (2009); cf.
Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090, 1096 (9th Cir. 2008) (officers entitled
to qualified immunity because it was not clearly established at the time of the
incident whether pre-towing notice must be given before a car with a valid planned
non-operation certificate may be removed from a parking lot matching the owner’s
address); Scofield v. Hillsborough, 862 F.2d 759, 762-64 (9th Cir. 1988)
(upholding towing of unregistered vehicle and stating that owner was not entitled
to hearing or notice before vehicle could be towed under California statute).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Deligiannis’s
substantive due process claim because Deligiannis failed to establish a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ actions were “clearly arbitrary
and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals
2 10-55595
or general welfare.” Hoeck v. City of Portland, 57 F.3d 781, 786 (9th Cir. 1995)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Deligiannis’s First
Amendment retaliation claim because Deligiannis failed to establish a genuine
dispute of material fact as to whether chilling of his political speech was “a
substantial or motivating factor” in defendants’ conduct. Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v.
Mendocino County, 192 F.3d 1283, 1300 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Deligiannis’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-55595