FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARBARA FOURNIER and BRUCE No. 12-36062
JENKINS,
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00343-AC
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM*
TERRY CUDDEFORD,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Portland, Oregon
Before: GOODWIN, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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 Sheriff’s Deputy Terry Cuddeford violated their
*
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).
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
Cuddeford’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.
2