# Kyle Petersen v. Anthony Sims, Jr.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · August 18, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9556804

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 18, 2023
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **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/9556804

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that “clearly established” means that the constitutional question was “beyond debate,” such that every reasonable official would understand that what he is doing is unlawful

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KYLE PETERSEN, No. 22-15362

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00138-DAD-EPG

v.
MEMORANDUM*
ANTHONY SIMS, Jr., HSI Agent;
NICHOLAS TORRES, HSI Agent,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Kyle Petersen appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that warrantless searches conducted after his parole

revocation of cell phones seized during earlier parole searches violated the Fourth

Amendment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

*
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).
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the basis of qualified

immunity. Benavidez v. County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141 (9th Cir.

2021). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Petersen’s action on the basis of

qualified immunity because defendants’ conduct did not violate clearly established

constitutional rights. See Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 232 (2009)

(government officials are entitled to qualified immunity where there is no violation

of plaintiff’s constitutional right or the right at issue was not “clearly established”

at the time of the alleged violation); see also District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S.

Ct. 577, 589 (2018) (explaining that “clearly established” means that the

constitutional question was “beyond debate,” such that every reasonable official

would understand that what he is doing is unlawful).

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-15362

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9556804. Public record. Not legal advice.