Marr v. County of Riverside

Full title: David James MARR, on his behalf, and as Special Administrator of the…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: May 8, 1996

152 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 1996)

Opinion

152 F.3d 927 (9th Cir. 1998) David James MARR, on his behalf, and as Special Administrator of the Estate of Evan David Marr, deceased; Elaine J. Marr, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; M. Blackwood; V. Trevino; J. Rubien; Steven Maher; City of Indio; M. Lopez; Cities of Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, and La Quinta, California, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-56620. No. CV-92-06168-WMB. Argued and Submitted May 8, 1996. Submission deferred June 25, 1997 United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit July 8, 1998

Editorial Note:

This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)

Resubmitted July 6, 1998.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California William Matthew Byrne, Jr, District Judge, Presiding.

Before GIBSON, ^** NOONAN, and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

** Hon. Floyd R. Gibson, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM ^*

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir. R. 36-3.

David James Marr appeals the grant of summary judgment in his suit against the County of Riverside and the other named defendants. We have deferred submission until the Supreme Court ruled in County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043, 1998 WL 259980 (May 26, 1998). In the light of that decision we now affirm the judgment of the district court. For a plaintiff to prevail in an action for a death caused by a high speed police chase the plaintiff must show an intent by the police to harm the victim physically. Id. at *10. Such an intent has not been shown here. As no unconstitutional conduct has been shown by the employees, the claims of liability against the municipalities fail as well. Id. at fn. 10.

AFFIRMED.