Hansen

Hansen v. Permanente Medical Group, Inc.

Good Law
166 F. App'x 907
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 12, 2006No. 05-15412; D.C. No. CV-04-01490-GEB/GGHCalifornia414 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Carmen Hansen appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing without leave to amend her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that her former employer, Permanente Medical Group, Inc. (“PMG”), a private corporation, violated her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments rights by using California state court proceedings to recover certain documents that it claimed Hansen had removed from its premises without authorization. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), ASW v. Oregon, 424 F.3d 970 , 974 (9th Cir.2005), and we affirm.

A section 1983 claim “may lie against a private party who ‘is a willful participant in joint action with the State.’ ” DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 647 (9th *908 Cir.2000) (quoting Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24, 27-28 , 101 S.Ct. 183 , 66 L.Ed.2d 185 (1980)). Hansen contends that she demonstrated joint action because the state court judge who issued a writ of possession for the subject documents credited a declaration submitted by PMG despite Hansen’s assertion that the declaration was untrue. This contention is…

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.