Philip C. Bikle v. A. SANTOS, Officer, in his individual capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILIP C. BIKLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
A. SANTOS, Officer, in his individual
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-55077
D.C. No. 8:13-cv-01662-DOC-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
David O. Carter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 22, 2015**
Before: HAWKINS, GRABER, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Philip C. Bikle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising out of a traffic citation. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Barrett v. Belleque, 544 F.3d 1060,
FILED
JUL 01 2015
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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

1061 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bikle’s action as frivolous because
Bikle’s claims lacked any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (a “frivolous” claim lacks an arguable basis either in law
or in fact; “[the] term ‘frivolous’ . . . embraces not only the inarguable legal
conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation”); see also New York v. Class,
475 U.S. 106, 114, 117-18 (1986) (there is “no reasonable expectation of privacy”
in a vehicle’s VIN number under the Fourth Amendment); cf. In re Arturo D, 38
P.3d 433, 450-51 (Cal. 2002) (a police officer’s limited search of the vehicle’s
glove compartment and other areas constituted a reasonable search when the
plaintiff was unable to produce a driver’s license and registration).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Bikle’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of
review).
We do not consider issues or arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Bikle’s requests for judicial notice, filed on August 28, 2014, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55077

-- 2 of 2 --