Deanna Gangstee v. County of Sacramento;

12-15287Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit07.04.2014

Gesamter Gesetzestext

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEANNA GANGSTEE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JORDAN CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15287
D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01004-KJM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 2, 2013
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
FILED
APR 07 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

-- 1 of 2 --

Deanna Gangstee and Jordan Chambers appeal the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the County of Sacramento, Sheriff John McGinness, and
Deputy Stephen LeCouve on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Fourth Amendment
unreasonable seizure and related federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
1. The district court determined that, upon intentional deployment of a canine,
the canine’s handler is constitutionally responsible for any unreasonable seizure
the canine makes. We do not agree with the district court’s reasoning. A violation
of the Fourth Amendment on the basis of an unreasonable seizure “requires an
intentional acquisition of physical control.” Brower v. Cnty. of Inyo, 489 U.S. 593,
596 (1989). The victim must be the “object of the detention.” Id. Here, there is no
evidence, nor contention, that LeCouve intentionally deployed his canine in an
effort to seize Gangstee. We are therefore bound by Brower, and affirm on that
basis. In light of this determination, we need not reach the district court’s ruling
that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether LeCouve
intentionally released the canine.
2. Our decision on Gangstee’s Fourth Amendment unreasonable seizure claim
is fatal to Gangstee’s additional § 1983 claims for Monell liability.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.