Case ID: f-appx_573/html/0641-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barbara FOURNIER and Bruce Jenkins, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Terry CUDDEFORD, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 12-36062.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 19, 2014.
    Edward Johnson, Hong Dao, Carolyn Norton, Portland, OR, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
    Scott Charles Ciecko, Oregon City, OR, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, 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

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.