Paul Weldon v. John Conlee
684 F. App'x 612
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Paul Weldon (pro se) sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various state-law theories after a traffic stop that resulted in his vehicle being towed and his arrest/processing.
- District court granted summary judgment for defendants on federal and state claims; Weldon appealed.
- Central factual disputes concerned reasonableness of the vehicle impound, whether Weldon received a post-seizure hearing, and whether officers used excessive force.
- District court found the tow lawful under California law and that any towing was done in good faith on police instruction.
- Court also found no post-seizure due process violation and held officers entitled to qualified immunity on excessive-force allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawful seizure / impound | Tow of vehicle was unreasonable and seizure unlawful | Vehicle was subject to immediate seizure under CA law; tow was valid | Summary judgment for defendants — impound reasonable under CA law |
| Due process (post-seizure hearing) | Denied timely post-seizure hearing / denied access to magistrate | Post-deprivation procedures (Cal. Veh. Code § 22852) satisfy due process; no magistrate denial shown | Summary judgment for defendants — no due process violation |
| Excessive force / qualified immunity | Officers used excessive force against Weldon | Officers’ actions were not clearly unconstitutional; qualified immunity applies | Summary judgment for defendants — qualified immunity; no clearly established violation |
| State tort claims (assault, battery, conversion, other) | State-law torts based on the stop, force, and towing | Torts fail because excessive-force claim fails and towing was lawful; remaining state claims dismissed for judicial economy | Summary judgment/dismissal for defendants on state claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Oyama v. Univ. of Hawaii, 813 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2015) (standard of de novo appellate review)
- Clement v. City of Glendale, 518 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2008) (private tow company defense when acting on police instructions)
- Goichman v. Rheuban Motors, Inc., 682 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1982) (no entitlement to immediate hearing; post-deprivation tow hearings satisfy due process)
- Sjurset v. Button, 810 F.3d 609 (9th Cir. 2015) (qualified immunity requires clearly established constitutional right)
- Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2001) (conclusory allegations insufficient to defeat summary judgment)
- Scofield v. City of Hillsborough, 862 F.2d 759 (9th Cir. 1988) (conversion claim fails where vehicle properly towed)
- Notrica v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Cty. of San Diego, 925 F.2d 1211 (9th Cir. 1991) (standard for dismissing pendant state-law claims)
- Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (appellate courts do not consider arguments not presented to the district court)
AFFIRMED.