Homer Earl Hawkins v. El Dorado Tow Company;

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOMER EARL HAWKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
EL DORADO TOW COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16777
D.C. No. 3:05-cv-02623-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Homer Earl Hawkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from the sale of his
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

/Research 08-16777 2
impounded car. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, McDade v. West, 223 F.3d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the due process claims against the
county employees because they were not lienholders and therefore had no duty
under California law to provide notice to Hawkins regarding the impending sale of
his vehicle. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3072(b) (requiring lienholder to provide notice
prior to sale of impounded vehicle); Shouse v. Ljunggren, 792 F.2d 902, 904-05
(9th Cir. 1986) (analyzing federal due process claim by evaluating whether
defendant had a duty to provide notice under state law).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the claims against
El Dorado Tow Company because Hawkins failed to controvert the evidence that
El Dorado Tow Company provided the required notice to Hawkins regarding the
sale of the vehicle. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3072(b) (explaining notice requirement);
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986) (“[In opposing summary
judgment, the nonmoving party must] designate specific facts showing that there is
a genuine issue for trial.”).
Hawkins’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --