FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL E. HARKE, No. 12-35263
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00023-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
D. HOFFMAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 15, 2013 **
Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Michael E. Harke appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that police officers violated his
constitutional rights when they advised his fiancé that she could use Harke’s
money to pay for damage he caused to their residence and recommended
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
prosecutors set a high bond for his release from jail. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076,
1083 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harke’s claims for
the seizure and deprivation of his personal property because Harke failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ advice to Harke’s fiancé
amounted to state action. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004-05 (1982)
(stating that a state actor must exercise coercive power or provide significant
encouragement before it can be held responsible for a private decision; mere
approval of or acquiescence in the private decision is insufficient).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harke’s claim
based on defendants’ bond recommendation because Harke failed to raise a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ recommendation was
excessive under the circumstances. See Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d
652, 656, 661 (9th Cir. 2007) (holding that a one million dollar bond set for a
charge of domestic battery was not excessive due to the safety concern for the
victim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Harke’s requests to
appoint counsel because Harke failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
2 12-35263
See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of
review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for appointment of
counsel).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-35263