Kimberly Tubbs v. Henry Gohrman

Good Law
539 F. App'x 788
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 29, 201312-35414California790 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

The Estate of Daniel Wasilchen, Virginia B. Vukasin, and Kimberly A. Tubbs (collectively, “the Estate”) appeal from the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Snohomish County and Henry “Sonny” Gohrman, the County’s Noxious Weed Coordinator, on their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not repeat them here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , review de novo, and may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record. United States v. Choudhry, 461 F.3d 1097, 1100 (9th Cir.2006).

The Estate’s state-created danger claim under the Fourteenth Amendment fails because Gohrman did not affirmatively place Wasilchen in danger, nor did he act -with deliberate indifference to a “known or obvious danger” to Wasilchen. Kennedy v. City of Ridgefield, 439 F.3d 1055, 1062 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Construing the factual disputes to favor the Estate, as we must, the danger to Wasil-chen’s bodily security arose not from the mere fact of Gohrman’s return with law enforcement, but from Wasilchen’s arming himself, aiming at Gohrman, and refusing to drop his weapon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.