Opinion
No. 12-36062 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00343-AC
05-19-2014
BARBARA FOURNIER and BRUCE JENKINS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. TERRY CUDDEFORD, Defendant - Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
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 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.