Clausing

Clausing v. King County

Good Law
15 F. App'x 529
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 2001No. 00-35044; D.C. No. CV-98-01026-MJPCalifornia419 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Cleo Clausing appeals the district court’s summary judgment against her in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against King County and the King County Department of Public Safety. She alleged that the seizure of her real property deprived her of her due process rights. 1 We affirm.

Clausing asserts that members of the Drug Enforcement Unit of the King County Sheriffs Department improperly seized real property in which she had an interest, without providing for a pre-seizure notice and hearing. See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 62 , 114 S.Ct. 492, 505 , 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993). For that alleged wrong, she sought to maintain a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the County. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 , 98 S.Ct. 2018, 2035-36 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Gillette v. Delmore, 979 F.2d 1342, 1346 (9th Cir.1992). However, Clausing failed to support her assertions with evidence that was sufficient to permit a judgment in her favor. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-52 , 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2510-12 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Gillette, 979 F.2d at 1346-47 . We recognize that Clausing did attempt to place evidence of…

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.