Barbara Fournier v. Terry Cuddeford

Ninth Circuit

Barbara Fournier v. Terry Cuddeford

573 F. App'x 641

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 19, 2014

Docket12-36062

StatusUnpublished

This text of 573 F. App'x 641 (Barbara Fournier v. Terry Cuddeford) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barbara Fournier v. Terry Cuddeford, 573 F. App'x 641 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

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 Sheriffs 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 Cudde-ford’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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

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 Sheriffs 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 Cudde-ford’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.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

573 F. App'x 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barbara-fournier-v-terry-cuddeford-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack