Brincken v. Royal, 120414 FED9, 13-15491
|Party Name:||SHELLEY VON BRINCKEN; JOHN VON BRINCKEN, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. KEITH ROYAL, in his official and private capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.|
|Judge Panel:||Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.|
|Case Date:||December 04, 2014|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted November 18, 2014 [**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02599-MCE-CKD Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Shelley and John von Brincken appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Deputies Grueneberg and Fevinger because they are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for executing a facially valid court order. See Engebretson v. Mahoney, 724 F.3d 1034, 1038-39 (9th Cir. 2013) ("[P]ublic officials who ministerially enforce facially valid court orders are entitled to absolute immunity.").
The district court properly dismissed the claims against Sheriff Royal and the Nevada County Sheriff's Department because the von Brinckens failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Sheriff Royal personally acted to violate their rights, see Hansen v. Black, 885 F.2d 642, 645-46 (9th Cir. 1989) ("[S]upervisory officials are not liable . . . on any theory of vicarious liability."), and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the Nevada County Sheriff's Department has any official policy or custom that caused a violation of their rights, see Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694 (1978).
The district court properly dismissed the von Brinckens' claim for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act because the von Brinckens failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants fall within the statutory definition...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP