NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JASON C. YOUKER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

CALLIE HILLHOUSE; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

RAYMOND MAYCUMBER, Sheriff, Ferry 

County Sheriff's Office; et al.,

Defendants.

No. 21-35270 

D.C. No. 2:19-cv-00177-RMP 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Washington

Rosanna Malouf Peterson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 27, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, D. NELSON and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 27 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Jason Youker appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment order in 

favor of the City of Republic and other defendants in his civil rights action 

concerning the seizure and forfeiture of his property. Where the appellant is pro 

se, we have an obligation “to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the 

petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th 

Cir. 1985) (en banc). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Soc. Techs. LLC v. Apple 

Inc., 4 F.4th 811, 816 (9th Cir. 2021). We affirm in part and reverse and remand in 

part.

The district court erred in concluding that Youker’s Fourth Amendment 

claim, Claim 1, was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in 

Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.080(2). See Boston v. Kitsap Cnty., 852 F.3d 1182, 1185 

(9th Cir. 2017) (holding that federal courts look to state law for the statute of 

limitations in actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983). The statute of limitations was 

tolled pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 4.16.190 while Youker was imprisoned on 

criminal charges prior to his sentencing on May 24, 2016.1 He filed his complaint 

exactly three years later on May 24, 2019. 

1 We take judicial notice of the date of Youker’s sentencing in United States 

v. Youker, 2:14-cr-152-RMP-1 (E.D. Wash.). See Avilez v. Garland, 48 F.4th 915, 

917 n.3 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding that we may take notice of proceedings in other 

courts if those proceedings have a direct relation to the case at issue).
3 

The district court also erred in concluding that there was no genuine issue of 

material fact as to whether defendants seized property beyond the scope of the 

search warrant. See United States v. Ramirez, 976 F.3d 946, 952 (9th Cir. 2020) 

(“[A] search or seizure pursuant to an otherwise valid warrant is unreasonable 

under the Fourth Amendment to the extent it exceeds the scope of that warrant.”). 

The warrant listed certain items subject to seizure, but the list of items seized in the 

Ferry County Sheriff’s Office Property Report includes other property. Viewing 

the evidence in the light most favorable to Youker, we hold that defendants did not 

meet the standard for summary judgment. See Cadena v. Customer Connexx LLC, 

51 F.4th 831, 835 (9th Cir. 2022). We therefore reverse the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim.

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Youker’s claim 

of denial of due process in the seizure and forfeiture of his property. The district 

court correctly concluded that this claim was precluded because Youker had an 

adequate post-deprivation remedy in state tort law. See Miranda v. City of Casa 

Grande, 15 F.4th 1219, 1227–28 (9th Cir. 2021); Wash. Rev. Code § 4.92.090-

.100 (stating that the State of Washington “shall be liable for damages arising out 

of its tortious conduct to the same extent as if it were a private person or 

corporation”).

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on Youker’s claim 
4 

of conspiracy and fraud. See Hart v. Parks, 450 F.3d 1059, 1069 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(holding that conspiracy requires agreement to violate plaintiff’s constitutional 

rights); Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1126 (9th Cir. 2009) (requiring 

that federal courts look to state law for elements of fraud); Stiley v. Block, 925 P.2d 

194, 204 (Wash. 1996) (describing the elements of fraud under Washington law).

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED as to the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment on the Fourth Amendment claim; and REMANDED for 

further proceedings on the Fourth Amendment claim and the claim of 

municipal liability for any Fourth Amendment violation.