Michael Harke v. D. Hoffman

MEMORANDUM

Michael E. Harke appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that police officers violated his constitutional rights when they advised his fiancé that she could use Harke’s money to pay for damage he caused to their residence and recommended prosecutors set a high bond for his release from jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Bravo v. City of Santa Maria, 665 F.3d 1076, 1083 (9th Cir.2011). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harke’s claims for the seizure and deprivation of his personal property because Harke failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants’ advice to Harke’s fi-ancé amounted to state action. See Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004-05 , 102 S.Ct. 2777 , 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (stating that a state actor must exercise coercive power or provide significant encouragement before it can be held responsible for a private decision; mere approval of or acquiescence in the private decision is insufficient).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Harke’s claim based on defendants’ bond…