Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shelley VON BRINCKEN; John Von Brincken, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Keith ROYAL, in his official and private capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-15491.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 4, 2014.
    Shelley Von Brincken, Grass Valley, CA, pro se.
    John Von Brincken, Grass Valley, CA, pro se.
    Alison A. BarratNGreen, Nevada City, CA, Marcos Kropf, Esquire, Office of Sacramento City Attorney, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Shelley and John von Brincken appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Deputies Grueneberg and Fevinger because they are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for executing a facially valid court order. See Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (9th Cir.2013) (“[Pjublic officials who ministerially enforce facially valid court orders are entitled to absolute immunity.”).

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Sheriff Royal and the Nevada County Sheriffs Department because the von Brinckens failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Sheriff Royal personally acted to violate their rights, see Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645-46 (9th Cir.1989) (“[Sjupervisory officials are not liable ... on any theory of vicarious liability.”), and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the Nevada County Sheriffs Department has any official policy or custom that caused a violation of their rights, see Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

The district court properly dismissed the von Brinckens’ claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the von Brinckens failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants fall within the statutory definition of “debt collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector”); Schlegel v. Wells Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1208-09 (9th Cir.2013) (plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to show that mortgagee was a “debt collector” under 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that the district court may dismiss without leave to amend when amendment would be futile).

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