Barbara Fournier v. Terry Cuddeford , 573 F. App'x 641 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               MAY 19 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    BARBARA FOURNIER and BRUCE                       No. 12-36062
    JENKINS,
    D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00343-AC
    Plaintiffs - Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    TERRY CUDDEFORD,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 13, 2014**
    Portland, Oregon
    Before:        GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    Barbara Fournier and Bruce Jenkins (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) appeal the
    district court’s summary judgment in their 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action. Plaintiffs
    allege that Clackamas County Sheriff’s Deputy Terry Cuddeford violated their
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights when he responded to their 911 call
    reporting that they were being subjected to an unlawful eviction. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . On de novo review, Morrison v. Hall, 
    261 F.3d 896
    , 900 (9th Cir. 2001), we affirm.
    Plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether
    Cuddeford’s conduct constituted state action because Cuddeford was summoned to
    a scene not of his making after the confrontation had already occurred. See Meyers
    v. Redwood City, 
    400 F.3d 765
    , 771-72 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that police officers
    who were summoned to a scene not of their making, where the confrontation was
    not conducted under their purview, “were not so enmeshed in effectuating the
    repossession that the deprivation and seizure . . . is attributable to the state”); see
    also Howerton v. Gabica, 
    708 F.2d 380
    , 383-84 (9th Cir. 1983) (relying on
    repossession cases to set out the legal framework for state action in a case alleging
    unlawful eviction).
    AFFIRMED.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-36062

Citation Numbers: 573 F. App'x 641

Judges: Goodwin, Ikuta, Smith

Filed Date: 5/19/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024