Shelley Von Brincken; John Von Brincken v. Keith Royal, in his official and private capacity;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHELLEY VON BRINCKEN; JOHN
VON BRINCKEN,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
KEITH ROYAL, in his official and private
capacity; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 13-15491
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-02599-MCE-
CKD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
DEC 4 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.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

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 of “debt
collector.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector”); Schlegel v. Wells
13-15491 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Fargo Bank, NA, 720 F.3d 1204, 1208-09 (9th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff failed to allege
facts sufficient to show that mortgagee was a “debt collector” under 15 U.S.C.
§ 1692a(6)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend
because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review
and stating that the district court may dismiss without leave to amend when
amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
13-15491 3

-- 3 of 3 --