Pickens

Pickens v. Miller

Good Law

216 F. Supp. 2d 1011·2002 WL 1926005·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15567

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJuly 10, 2002C-02-01936 JWCalifornia2,399 words

Opinion

Ware, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FAULK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

I. INTRODUCTION

Billy Pickens (“Plaintiff’) filed this action against Defendants Ray Miller (“Miller”) and Officer Raymond Faulk (“Officer Faulk”). Two causes of action are asserted against Officer Faulk. Plaintiff alleges constitutional violations for unlawful seizure pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a state law claim for interference with contractual relations. Presently before the Court is Defendant Officer Faulk’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Based upon all papers filed to date, and oral argument of counsel at the hearing held on July 1, 2002, Defendant Officer Faulk’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.

II. BACKGROUND

The following facts are uncontested. On June 6, 2001 Defendant Miller made a stolen vehicle report to California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer Courtney, who in turn called Officer Faulk. Miller reported that Plaintiff had agreed to buy a 1989 Harley Davidson motorcycle from Miller for approximately $10,000 and Plaintiff had taken possession of the motorcycle several months earlier. Miller reported that Plaintiff failed to make payments on the motorcycle or return…

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.