Paul Hupp v. Terrance R. Hubbs;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAUL HUPP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
TERRANCE R. HUBBS; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-55266
D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02560-VAP-SP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2017**
Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Paul Hupp appeals pro se from district court’s judgment dismissing his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourth Amendment and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
* 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
APR 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-55266
12(b)(6). Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hupp’s Fourth Amendment claim
arising out of defendant Hubbs’ alleged license plate check because Hubbs’ act of
running a license plate check to access Hupp’s home address did not constitute a
search under the Fourth Amendment and thus did not require probable cause. See
United States v. Diaz-Castaneda, 494 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2007) (a police
officer does not conduct a search under the Fourth Amendment when he sees a
license plate in plain view and uses it to access non-private information about the
car and its owner).
We reject as without merit Hupp’s various contentions about the district
court’s bias, its assignment of cases to particular judges, and its failure to provide
an opportunity for oral argument.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations 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 --