Stephen Puccetti v. Jeff Spencer
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Stephen Puecetti and Richard Bottini appeal the district court’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal of their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims for unreasonable arrest and failure to provide material evidence. They also appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment against their § 1983 claims for malicious prosecution, bad-faith destruction of evidence, and fabrication of evidence. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
Because the plaintiffs’ claims depend, at least in part, on an interpretation of a particular Oregon hunting law, we begin by interpreting that law as we believe the Oregon Supreme Court would interpret it. See In re Kirkland, 915 F.2d 1236, 1239 (9th Cir.1990). Plaintiffs allege that Oregon’s “mercy-killing” statute, providing for the killing of crippled or helpless wildlife, legalizes their admitted hunting practices. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 498.016. We disagree. The “mercy-killing” statute cannot apply to Bottini because he was charged with “Lending a Big Game Tag” and was not responsible for killing the elk. We also hold that Puecetti did not kill the elk in question for “humane purposes” as required by the statute.…