Albert Yendes, Jr. v. Troy Ribail
Albert E. YENDES, Jr.; Franklin Garrett, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Troy RIBAIL, Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in His Individual Capacity; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- Area
- other
- Panel
- Arthur L. Alarcon (author), Consuelo M. Callahan, Richard R. Clifton
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT E. YENDES, Jr.; FRANKLIN No. 11-56152 GARRETT, Jr., D.C. No. 3:09-cv-01143-L-CAB Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. MEMORANDUM * TROY RIBAIL, Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in his individual capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California M. James Lorenz, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 24, 2013 ** Before: ALARCÓN, CLIFTON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Albert E. Yendes, Jr., and Franklin Garrett, Jr., appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action brought under Bivens v. Six * 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). Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging that FBI agents violated plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights while investigating their operation of “assistance clinics” offering notarized residency documents to Spanish-speaking immigrants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.
2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ claim alleging unlawful seizure because plaintiffs failed to allege facts showing that defendants lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop. See Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) (investigatory stops are permitted under the Fourth Amendment “when the officer has a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot”).
Plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court erred in addressing qualified immunity at this stage in the proceedings, applied incorrect standards in deciding the motion to dismiss, and improperly considered matters outside the pleadings are unpersuasive.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
2 11-56152 (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-56152