Icon Desert Logistics, a California limited liability company; v. City of Blythe, a government entity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ICON DESERT LOGISTICS, a California
limited liability company; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
CITY OF BLYTHE, a government entity; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-55500
D.C. No.
5:20-cv-02225-CAS-JC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 14, 2023
Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, CHRISTEN, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Icon Desert Logistics, Thomas Lawson, Xiaotong Liu, and Keyao
Yu appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Officer Rudy
Moreno of the City of Blythe Police Department, Deputy Devin Hedge of the
County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department, and their respective local governments.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
FILED
AUG 31 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2
We affirm. We review de novo the district court’s order granting summary
judgment and may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Richards v. Cnty.
of San Bernardino, 39 F.4th 562, 569 (9th Cir. 2022). Summary judgment is
appropriate when, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party, there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
Plaintiffs allege that Officer Moreno and Deputy Hedge violated their Fourth
Amendment rights by using an administrative inspection of Plaintiffs’ property as a
pretext for a criminal investigation. The evidence, viewed in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs, does not establish that Officer Moreno and Deputy Hedge
violated the Fourth Amendment. Even assuming the officers had a criminal
investigatory motive for assisting with the administrative search, no reasonable
trier of fact could find that: (1) the search “would not have occurred in the absence
of an impermissible reason,” United States v. Orozco, 858 F.3d 1204, 1213 (9th
Cir. 2017); or (2) the improper motive had an “impact on the intrusiveness of the
search,” United States v. Grey, 959 F.3d 1166, 1183 (9th Cir. 2020). The presence
of an impermissible motive does not, by itself, establish that the administrative
search was pretextual, Orozco, 858 F.3d at 1213, and here, the record shows the
presence of a valid motive: the city inspector obtained the administrative search

-- 2 of 3 --

3
warrant, requested police assistance, and ultimately issued a notice and order to
abate based on violations of city ordinances discovered during the search.
Additionally, there is no evidence that the officers exceeded the scope of the search
as authorized by the facially valid warrant or that they conducted the search in an
excessively intrusive manner. Plaintiffs point to the number of officers who
assisted with the search, but there is no evidence that the number of officers was
excessive under the circumstances presented here.
Because we find no genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the
officers violated the Fourth Amendment, we do not reach the issue of qualified
immunity. Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365, 371 n.4 (9th
Cir. 1998), as amended (Nov. 24, 1998). Further, because we conclude that there
is no claim for a Fourth Amendment violation against Officer Moreno or Deputy
Hedge, there cannot be any claims against the City of Blythe or the County of
Riverside.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --