Reuben Nieves v. World Savings Bank, Fsb; Wachovia Mortgage Corporation

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2), and therefore denies Nieves’s motion
for oral argument.
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
REUBEN NIEVES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WORLD SAVINGS BANK, FSB;
WACHOVIA MORTGAGE
CORPORATION
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16839
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00988-MCE-
GGH
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Reuben Nieves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging, inter alia, that the defendant banks violated
FILED
DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 08-16839 2
his due process rights by proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure sale on his
property. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Nieves failed to
allege facts demonstrating that the defendants’ conduct constituted government
action sufficient to support a claim under section 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Am. Mfrs.
Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 56 (1999) (explaining that extensive
regulation does not convert a private company into a state actor liable under
section 1983); Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003)
(concluding that a bank using a non-judicial foreclosure procedure provided by
state law was not a government actor under section 1983); Mathis v. Pac. Gas &
Elec. Co., 891 F.2d 1429, 1432 n.3 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The standards for determining
whether an action is governmental are the same whether the purported nexus is to
the state or to the federal government.”).
Nieves’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees’ motions to take judicial notice are granted.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --