Case Name: Deanna GANGSTEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jordan Chambers, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-07
Citations: 567 F. App'x 500
Docket Number: No. 12-15287
Parties: Deanna GANGSTEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jordan Chambers, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 567
Pages: 500–501

Head Matter:
Deanna GANGSTEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Jordan Chambers, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-15287.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Dec. 2, 2013.
Filed April 7, 2014.
Stewart Katz, Law Offices of Stewart Katz, Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Amanda Lynn Butts, Esquire, Jeri Lynn Pappone, John A. Lavra, Esquire, Lon-gyear O’Dea and Lavra, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Deanna Gangstee and Jordan Chambers appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to the County of Sacramento, Sheriff John McGinness, and Deputy Stephen LeCouve on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment unreasonable, seizure and related federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court determined that, upon intentional deployment of a canine, the canine's handler is constitutionally responsible for any unreasonable seizure the canine makes. We do not agree with the district court's reasoning. A violation of the Fourth Amendment on the basis of an unreasonable seizure "requires an intentional acquisition of physical control." Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593, 596, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989). The victim must be the "object of the detention." Id. Here, there is no evidence, nor contention, that LeCouve intentionally deployed his canine in an effort to seize Gangstee. We are therefore bound by Brower, and affirm on that basis. In light of this determination, we need not reach the district court's ruling that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether LeCouve intentionally released the canine.
2. Our decision on Gangstee's Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim is fatal to Gangstee's additional § 1983 claims for Monell liability.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.