Washie Ouma v. Clackamas County, 663 F. App'x 544

Background

Plaintiff Washie Ouma, proceeding pro se, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his arrest and a visual body-cavity strip search while held pre-arraignment at Washington County Jail.
Defendants included Washington County, Clackamas County, and various unnamed Doe defendants; the district court granted summary judgment for the counties and dismissed some Doe defendants for failure to timely identify/serve.
Ouma alleged constitutional violations arising from the arrest and the strip-search policy/practice during pretrial detention.
The district court granted summary judgment to Washington County (search claim) and Clackamas County (municipal liability for the arrest); Ouma appealed.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment de novo and affirmed, finding no genuine disputes of material fact on municipal policy/custom or on unreasonable search under relevant standards.
The court also affirmed dismissal of Doe defendants for lack of timely identification/ service and declined to consider arguments or documents not raised below or not properly appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Clackamas County is liable under Monell for constitutional deprivation from Ouma's arrest	Ouma argued the arrest-related conduct resulted from county policy/custom producing a constitutional violation	Clackamas County argued no official policy, practice, or custom caused any constitutional deprivation	Court: No Monell liability; Ouma failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact linking county policy/custom to any deprivation
Whether Washington County’s visual body-cavity strip search violated the Fourth Amendment	Ouma argued the search was unreasonable and not related to legitimate penological interests	Washington County argued the search was reasonably related to legitimate penological objectives for pretrial detainees	Court: Summary judgment for Washington County; Ouma did not show the search was unreasonable under applicable factors
Whether Doe defendants should remain after discovery	Ouma contended unnamed defendants should proceed or be identified	Defendants/ court noted Ouma failed to timely identify/serve Doe defendants after discovery	Court: Dismissal of Does 1–3 affirmed for failure to timely identify/serve
Whether appellate review could consider additional documents/arguments and certain district orders (costs, denial of reconsideration)	Ouma raised additional arguments and sought review of costs and reconsideration rulings	Defendants argued appellate review is limited to issues properly raised and timely appealed	Court: Did not consider issues raised for first time on appeal or documents not filed below; lacked jurisdiction to consider cost order and some reconsideration issues due to defective appeal

Key Cases Cited

Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of de novo review on summary judgment in § 1983 appeal)
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires a policy, practice, or custom causing constitutional harm)
Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964 (9th Cir. 2010) (factors for reasonableness of pretrial detention searches)
In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507 (9th Cir. 2001) (standard for reviewing dismissal for failure to prosecute/serve)
Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637 (9th Cir. 1980) (use of John Doe permitted through end of discovery)
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983 (9th Cir. 2009) (appellate court will not consider issues not raised in opening brief)
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1990) (documents not filed in district court generally not considered on appeal)
Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572 (9th Cir. 2007) (appeal jurisdiction limits where separate or amended notice of appeal required)
Cigna Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Polaris Pictures Corp., 159 F.3d 412 (9th Cir. 1998) (appellate affirmance may rest on any ground supported by the record)