Richard Vickerman v. James Bixler

MEMORANDUM

Richard C. Vickerman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action arising from an inspection of, and his eviction from, a rental unit financed by the Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. DuBois v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of 2987 Kalakaua, 453 F.3d 1175 , 1178 (9th Cir.2006) (summary judgment); Clinton v. Babbitt, 180 F.3d 1081, 1086 (9th Cir.1999) (sovereign immunity); Moore v. Brewster, 96 F.3d 1240, 1243 (9th Cir.1996) (judicial immunity). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Vickerman’s claims seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his First and Fourth Amendment rights because Vickerman failed to provide any admissible evidence to rebut defendants’ showing that private parties managed the apartment complex and conducted the inspection of Vickerman’s rental unit. See Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 835 (9th Cir.1999) (the ultimate issue in determining whether a person is subject to suit under § 1983 is whether the alleged infringement of federal rights is fairly attributable to…