Shelley Von Brincken v. Keith Royal

Good Law
586 F. App'x 378
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 4, 201413-15491California365 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

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 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) (“[Pjublic 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 Sheriffs 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) (“[Sjupervisory officials are not liable ... on any theory of vicarious liability.”), and failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the Nevada County…

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.