Kyle Petersen v. ANTHONY SIMS, Jr., HSI Agent; NICHOLAS TORRES, HSI Agent

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KYLE PETERSEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANTHONY SIMS, Jr., HSI Agent;
NICHOLAS TORRES, HSI Agent,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15362
D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00138-DAD-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
AUG 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15362
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 of 2 --