Antquan Durpree Clay v. San Bernardino County;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTQUAN DURPREE CLAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-56490
D.C. No. 5:15-cv-02395-AG-DFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Antquan Durpree Clay appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from
a strip search while he was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 42
* 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
FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-56490
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918, 926 (9th Cir.
2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Clay’s excessive
force claim against defendant Harris because Clay failed to raise a genuine dispute
of material fact as to whether the force used to compel the search was objectively
unreasonable. See Kingsley v. Hendrickson, 576 U.S. 389, 396-97 (2015) (setting
forth standard for an excessive force claim under the Fourteenth Amendment).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Clay’s
unreasonable search claim against defendant Harris because Clay failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the search was unreasonable. See
Bull v. City & County of San Francisco, 595 F.3d 964, 971-74 (9th Cir. 2010) (en
banc) (setting forth factors relevant to reasonableness of pretrial detention search,
including whether a search is reasonably related to a legitimate government
objective).
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 --