Reuben Nieves v. World Savings Bank, Fsb , 357 F. App'x 843 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            DEC 08 2009
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                     U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    REUBEN NIEVES,                                  No. 08-16839
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00988-MCE-
    GGH
    v.
    WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB;                        MEMORANDUM *
    WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
    CORPORATION
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted November 17, 2009 **
    Before:        TROTT, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    Reuben Nieves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     claim alleging, inter alia, that the defendant banks violated
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
    oral argument, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2), and therefore denies Nieves’s motion
    for oral argument.
    tk/Research
    his due process rights by proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure sale on his
    property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo.
    Rivera v. United States, 
    924 F.2d 948
    , 950 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed the action because Nieves failed to
    allege facts demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct constituted government
    action sufficient to support a claim under section 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown
    Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971). See Am. Mfrs.
    Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 
    526 U.S. 40
    , 56 (1999) (explaining that extensive
    regulation does not convert a private company into a state actor liable under
    section 1983); Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 
    324 F.3d 1091
    , 1095 (9th Cir. 2003)
    (concluding that a bank using a non-judicial foreclosure procedure provided by
    state law was not a government actor under section 1983); Mathis v. Pac. Gas &
    Elec. Co., 
    891 F.2d 1429
    , 1432 n.3 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The standards for determining
    whether an action is governmental are the same whether the purported nexus is to
    the state or to the federal government.”).
    Nieves’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    Appellees’ motions to take judicial notice are granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    tk/Research                                  2                                  08-16839
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-16839

Citation Numbers: 357 F. App'x 843

Judges: Trott, Tashima, Wardlaw

Filed Date: 12/8/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024