Little

Little v. City of Manhattan Beach

Good Law
21 F. App'x 651
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 19, 2001No. 00-55503; D.C. No. CV-98-10500-DTCalifornia858 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Appellants, the widow, mother, and minor children of decedent Furman Little (“Little”), appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and the dismissal without prejudice of their state wrongful death claim. Appellants contend that the shooting and killing of Furman Little by Officers Karl Nilsson and Gus Valdes violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Preliminarily, we address the question of standing. Although the district court relied upon this court’s holding in Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir.1998), to find that Little’s surviving spouse and children lacked standing to assert his Fourth Amendment rights, Byrd itself relied upon a prior version of the state law, which did not permit survival actions. Because California Civil Procedure Code § 377.60 (effective May 23, 1997) authorizes such actions, decedent’s wife and children have standing to assert Little’s Fourth Amendment rights. See Moreland v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 159 F.3d 365 , 369 (9th Cir.1998). Decedent’s mother, however, does not have standing…

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.