Terrylyn McCain v. Stockton Police Department
695 F. App'x 314
9th Cir.2017Background
- Terrylyn McCain sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations arising from a traffic stop, her arrest on a warrant, a search incident to arrest, and the impound of her vehicle.
- The district court dismissed McCain’s complaint on the pleadings under Rule 12(c).
- Claims asserted included Fourth Amendment (stop, arrest, search, impound), Fifth Amendment self-incrimination and due process, First, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendment claims, right to interstate travel, and cruel and unusual punishment.
- McCain also challenged service/default against a defendant named Duran.
- McCain appealed pro se to the Ninth Circuit, which reviewed the dismissal de novo and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of traffic stop | McCain alleged stop lacked reasonable suspicion | Officers had reasonable suspicion for traffic stop | Dismissed — McCain failed to allege facts negating reasonable suspicion (stop lawful) |
| Validity of arrest on warrant | McCain contested the arrest as unconstitutional | Arresting officers reasonably believed warrant applied to McCain | Dismissed — arrest valid where officers reasonably relied on warrant |
| Search incident to arrest | McCain alleged unlawful search of property after arrest | Search was incident to custodial arrest and therefore lawful | Dismissed — warrantless search incident to arrest permitted |
| Vehicle impoundment | McCain argued impoundment/unlawful seizure and due process violation | Officers reasonably believed vehicle was being operated illegally on public right-of-way; caretaking/traffic-violation basis for tow | Dismissed — impoundment justified by traffic violation and caretaking function |
| Fifth Amendment self-incrimination | McCain claimed being forced to disclose full name violated privilege | Disclosure of name not protected absent real fear of incrimination; ID disclosure common where officer knows facts | Dismissed — no plausible Fifth Amendment claim from disclosing name |
| Other constitutional claims (First, Sixth, Fourteenth, interstate travel, cruel and unusual punishment) | McCain raised multiple additional constitutional theories | Defendants argued pleadings lack facts to state plausible claims | Dismissed — allegations insufficiently pleaded; no protected liberty interest pleaded for due process; other claims implausible |
| Default/service against Duran | McCain sought default judgment against Duran | Duran not properly served | District court did not abuse discretion setting aside default — service defective |
Key Cases Cited
- Berg v. Popham, 412 F.3d 1122 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c))
- Rivera v. County of Los Angeles, 745 F.3d 384 (9th Cir. 2014) (arrest pursuant to a warrant satisfies the Fourth Amendment if officer reasonably believes arrestee is subject of warrant)
- United States v. Hartz, 458 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2006) (traffic stop is reasonable if based on reasonable suspicion of lawbreaking)
- United States v. Edwards, 415 U.S. 800 (1974) (warrantless searches incident to custodial arrest permitted)
- Miranda v. City of Cornelius, 429 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 2005) (traffic regulation violations can justify vehicle impound when driver cannot lawfully remove vehicle)
- Hallstrom v. City of Garden City, 991 F.2d 1473 (9th Cir. 1993) (no due process violation for towing consistent with community caretaking)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (Fifth Amendment does not bar laws requiring identification absent real fear of incrimination)
- United States v. Bohn, 622 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2010) (disclosure of name/ID is not incriminating where officer already knows identity and conduct)
- Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338 (9th Cir. 2010) (pro se pleadings must still state plausible claims)
- Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. Greene, 648 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2011) (due process requires a protected liberty interest)
- Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169 (9th Cir. 2008) (Fifth Amendment due process applies only to federal action)
- Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202 (9th Cir. 1999) (no fundamental right to drive)
- Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489 (9th Cir. 1986) (court lacks jurisdiction without proper service)
- Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate courts do not consider arguments not raised in opening brief)