Patricia Long v. Pend Oreille County Sheriff's Department

Ninth Circuit

Patricia Long v. Pend Oreille County Sheriff's Department

385 F. App'x 641

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 2010

Docket09-35281

StatusUnpublished

This text of 385 F. App'x 641 (Patricia Long v. Pend Oreille County Sheriff's Department) 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

Patricia Long v. Pend Oreille County Sheriff's Department, 385 F. App'x 641 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Patricia A. Long appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated her constitutional rights by entering her house to gather documents pursuant to a court order in connection with guardianship proceedings for a previous resident of the house. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *642 Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 471 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Long failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether sheriffs deputies were acting under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See Henderson v. City of Simi Valley, 305 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir.2002) (affirming summary judgment for police officers under the special needs exception where, pursuant to a court order, officers accompanied daughter to mother’s home to keep the peace while daughter retrieved belongings). Because Long failed to establish that the deputies violated her constitutional rights, summary judgment for the sheriff and the sheriffs department also was proper. See Quintanilla v. City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353, 355-56 (9th Cir.1996) (plaintiff could not recover on a § 1983 claim against city or police chief absent underlying violation of his constitutional rights).

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to the guardian ad litem and her assistant because, as a matter of law, they are not state actors. See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2003) (a guardian ad litem appointed by a Washington court was not a state actor under § 1983).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Long’s request for an extension of time to conduct discovery. Long had been granted an extension previously but had not propounded discovery. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir.1998) (upholding denial of Rule 56(f) discovery motion where “appellants failed to identify facts, either discovered or likely to be discovered, that would support their § 1983 claim”).

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 **

Patricia A. Long appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment for defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated her constitutional rights by entering her house to gather documents pursuant to a court order in connection with guardianship proceedings for a previous resident of the house. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. *642 Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 471 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because Long failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether sheriffs deputies were acting under the special needs exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. See Henderson v. City of Simi Valley, 305 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir.2002) (affirming summary judgment for police officers under the special needs exception where, pursuant to a court order, officers accompanied daughter to mother’s home to keep the peace while daughter retrieved belongings). Because Long failed to establish that the deputies violated her constitutional rights, summary judgment for the sheriff and the sheriffs department also was proper. See Quintanilla v. City of Downey, 84 F.3d 353, 355-56 (9th Cir.1996) (plaintiff could not recover on a § 1983 claim against city or police chief absent underlying violation of his constitutional rights).

The district court properly granted summary judgment as to the guardian ad litem and her assistant because, as a matter of law, they are not state actors. See Kirtley v. Rainey, 326 F.3d 1088, 1095-96 (9th Cir.2003) (a guardian ad litem appointed by a Washington court was not a state actor under § 1983).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Long’s request for an extension of time to conduct discovery. Long had been granted an extension previously but had not propounded discovery. See Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853-54 (9th Cir.1998) (upholding denial of Rule 56(f) discovery motion where “appellants failed to identify facts, either discovered or likely to be discovered, that would support their § 1983 claim”).

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)

385 F. App'x 641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patricia-long-v-pend-oreille-county-sheriffs-department-ca9-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack