Boldt v. Myers, 042010 FED9, 07-35869

Docket Nº:07-35869
Party Name:ERNA E. N. BOLDT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. HARDY MYERS, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Oregon Department of Justice; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 20, 2010
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

ERNA E. N. BOLDT, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HARDY MYERS, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the Oregon Department of Justice; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-35869

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

April 20, 2010

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted April 5, 2010[**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-07-00008

Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM[*]

Erna E. N. Boldt appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants failed to investigate her allegations of elder abuse in violation of federal and state law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Seven Up Pete Venture v. Schweitzer, 523 F.3d 948, 952 n.4 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S.Ct. 258 (2008); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Boldt's claims against the Oregon Attorney General because he was entitled to immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. See Seven Up Pete Venture, 523 F.3d at 952-53.

The district court properly dismissed Boldt's section 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not entitle Boldt to an investigation of her allegations of elder abuse. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 764-66 (2005). Boldt fails to state a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim because even assuming defendants decided not to investigate her allegations fully based on her non-indigent status, they had a rational basis to do so. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1999) (financial status not a suspect class).

In addition, the district court properly dismissed Boldt's claims under the Oregon Constitution, see Hunter v. City of Eugene, 787 P.2d 881, 883-84 (Or. 1990), and under Oregon statutes, see Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 124.105, 124.110.

To the extent Boldt seeks to reverse the Oregon state court judgment against her, the district court properly...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP