Joshua Dimmig, a single man v. County of Pima, a political subdivision of the State of Arizona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSHUA DIMMIG, a single man,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF PIMA, a political
subdivision of the State of Arizona;
CLARENCE DUPNIK, Pima County
Sheriff; LAURA YBARRA, Pima County
Sheriff; SCOTT MCLEOD, Pima County
Sheriff Deputy; STEVEN LOVE, Pima
County Sheriff Deputy,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15953
D.C. No. 4:09-cv-00189-CKJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Cindy K. Jorgenson, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted April 10, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiff Joshua Dimmig appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim for a violation of his Fourth
Amendment right to be free from excessive force during a seizure. We affirm.
FILED
APR 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

Plantiff does not argue that the police car’s rolling over him was anything
but an accident. Police officers’ conduct only implicates the Fourth Amendment
when it involves “means intentionally applied.” Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S.
593, 597 (1989). “[T]he Fourth Amendment addresses ‘misuse of power,’ Byars v.
United States, 273 U.S. 28, 33 (1927), not the accidental effects of otherwise
lawful government conduct.” Id. at 596. Here, because the car was not a “means
intentionally applied,” the Fourth Amendment was not implicated.
Nor does this court’s “‘continuing seizure’ rule, which provides that ‘once a
seizure has occurred, it continues throughout the time the arrestee is in the custody
of the arresting officers,” Torres v. City of Madera, 524 F.3d 1053, 1056 (9th Cir.
2008) (quoting Robins v. Harum, 773 F.2d 1004, 1010 (9th Cir. 1985)), help
plaintiff. Even under the continuing seizure rule, the officers must apply a use of
force—in other words, a means intentionally applied, Brower, 489 U.S. at 597—to
implicate the Fourth Amendment.
Because the officers’ negligent conduct causing the accident did not
implicate the Fourth Amendment, we affirm the grant of summary judgment.
AFFIRMED.
-2-

-- 2 of 2 --