Donald Piercy v. Andrew Vandergaw Lake County, a Municipal Corporation

981 F.2d 1259 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Donald PIERCY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Andrew VANDERGAW; Lake County, a municipal corporation, Defendants-Appellees. No. 92-35425. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 21, 1992. * Decided Dec. 24, 1992. Before TANG, NOONAN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Donald Piercy appeals the district court's summary judgment in favor of Lake County and Andrew Vandergaw, the Lake County District Attorney, in Piercy's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We review de novo. Kruso v. International Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416 , 1421 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 937 (1990). We affirm. 3 Piercy contends that Vandergaw violated his civil rights when he wrote a letter to Piercy's employer threatening to withhold his patronage from the employer's grocery store so long as it employed Piercy. Vandergaw wrote the letter in response to public allegations by Piercy that Vandergaw had…