Michael Lamar Stewart v. City of San Diego;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LAMAR STEWART,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SAN DIEGO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-55091
D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00844-IEG-
WMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Irma E. Gonzalez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Michael Lamar Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations.
FILED
MAR 21 2013
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 3 --

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Picray v.
Sealock, 138 F.3d 767, 770 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stewart’s claim
alleging that Officer Rowlett illegally searched his person and his vehicle because
Stewart failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Officer
Rowlett had probable cause to make a warrantless arrest. See United States v.
Martin, 509 F.2d 1211, 1213 (9th Cir. 1975) (in determining whether there is
probable cause to make a warrantless arrest, courts consider “all the facts known to
the officers and consider all the reasonable inferences that could be drawn by them
before the arrest”); see also United States v. Osife, 398 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir.
2005) (when officers arrest an occupant of a vehicle, they may search the arrestee’s
person and the entire passenger compartment of the car).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Stewart’s claims
alleging that Officer Rowlett caused him to crash his vehicle into a lightpole and
that various city officials assisted in “covering up” the incident because Stewart
failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any defendant
violated any federal right. See Taylor v. List, 880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir. 1989)
(a party opposing summary judgment may not rely solely on conclusory allegations
unsupported by factual data); see also Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
11-55091 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986) (“Where the record taken as a whole could not
lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine
issue for trial.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Stewart’s contentions concerning discovery lack merit.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
11-55091 3

-- 3 of 3 --