Larry Synclair, Sr. v. County of Fresno ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                            FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 16 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    LARRY SYNCLAIR, SR., individually                No. 09-15337
    and as a parent of Larry Synclair, Jr., a
    minor,                                           D.C. No. 1:01-cv-06546-AWI-
    DLB
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM *
    COUNTY OF FRESNO; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    **
    Submitted December 14, 2010
    Before:       GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
    Larry Synclair, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
    judgment in his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action claiming that defendants violated his
    *
    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).
    Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process when they
    did not take steps to contact federal officials in connection with the alleged
    international parental abduction of his son. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo, Aguilera v. Baca, 
    510 F.3d 1161
    , 1167 (9th
    Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
    The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because
    Synclair’s interest in enforcing a custody order did not rise to the level of an
    entitlement protected by the Due Process Clause. The enforcement action Synclair
    sought to bring was not sufficiently specific and the defendant government
    officials had discretion to deny enforcement. See Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v.
    Gonzales, 
    545 U.S. 748
    , 756 (2005) (explaining that “a benefit is not a protected
    entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.”); see
    also United States v. Wilkerson, 
    208 F.3d 794
    , 800 (9th Cir. 2000) (describing the
    broad discretion prosecutors are afforded over decisions to investigate or pursue
    criminal charges).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                       09-15337
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-15337

Judges: Goodwin, Wallace, Thomas

Filed Date: 12/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024