Parker
Parker v. City of Pomona
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Sylvia Parker and Candice Marie Estep appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment. We affirm. Because the parties are sufficiently familiar with the factual and procedural histories of this case, we need not recount it here.
“[T]he first step” in any § 1983 litigation “is to identify the exact contours of the underlying right said to have been violated.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 , 841 n. 5, 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998), citing, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 394 , 109 S.Ct. 1865 , 104 L.Ed.2d 443 (1989). The district court correctly identified the rights underpinning Parker and Estep’s personal Fourteenth Amendment claims as rights distinct from those underpinning Mr. Estep’s Fourth Amendment claims. See Byrd v. Guess, 137 F.3d 1126, 1133-34 (9th Cir.), cert, denied sub nom., 525 U.S. 963 , 119 S.Ct. 405 , 142 L.Ed.2d 329 (1998), abrogated on other grounds by Lewis, 523 U.S. at 833 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 .
To prevail on their claims under the Fourteenth Amendment, plaintiffs were required to establish that Garvey’s conduct “shocks the conscience.” Lewis, 523 U.S. at 847 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 . This is a difficult standard to satisfy:…