Opinion ID: 202881
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendment Claims

Text: Plaintiffs further contend that the district court erroneously concluded that the second amended complaint did not include claims alleging violations of the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendments. In support of this contention, plaintiffs point to the jurisdictional allegations, which expressly state that the action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Even assuming that such claims were properly asserteda doubtful proposition at bestwe nonetheless hold that the district court properly dismissed the Fifth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendment claims.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that [n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. . . . U.S. Const. amend. V. The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, however, applies only to actions of the federal governmentnot to those of state or local governments. Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 687 (9th Cir.2001); see also Morin v. Caire, 77 F.3d 116, 120 (5th Cir.1996)([T]he Fifth Amendment applies only to the actions of the federal government, and not to the actions of a municipal government as in the present case.); cf. Dusenbery v. United States, 534 U.S. 161, 167, 122 S.Ct. 694, 151 L.Ed.2d 597 (2002) (The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the United States, as the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States, from depriving any person of property without `due process of law.'). [6] As plaintiffs do not allege that any of the defendants are federal actors, any Fifth Amendment claim was properly dismissed.
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VII. The Eighth Amendment, however, applies only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions. City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hosp., 463 U.S. 239, 244, 103 S.Ct. 2979, 77 L.Ed.2d 605 (1983)(quoting Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 671-72 n. 40, 97 S.Ct. 1401, 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977)). [T]he State does not acquire the power to punish with which the Eighth Amendment is concerned until after it has secured a formal adjudication of guilt in accordance with due process of law. Id. Here, because there had been no formal adjudication of guilt against Cepeda Martínez at the time of the alleged constitutional deprivation, the Eighth Amendment is inapplicable and any claim brought on that theory was properly dismissed.
Finally, plaintiffs contend that defendants violated Cepeda Martínez's Ninth Amendment rights. However, [t]he Ninth Amendment  which stipulates that `the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people'does not create substantive rights beyond those conferred by governing law. Vega-Rodriguez v. Puerto Rico Tel. Co., 110 F.3d 174, 182 (1st Cir.1997). Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed any Ninth Amendment claim.