Ward

Ward v. San Diego Unified Port District

Good Law
333 F. App'x 183
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 4, 2009No. 07-56050California1,241 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Because the parties are well aware of the facts of this case, the facts will not be repeated here. James Ward (“Ward”) appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the San Diego Unified Port District (the “Port”) on his failure to train claim, due process claims, and equal protection claim, each of which stemmed from the seizure and destruction of a vessel known as the Castle, and the alleged seizure of the outriggers used for mobility of a vessel known as Neptune’s Palace. We affirm.

This Court reviews a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Golden Gate Restaurant Ass’n v. City and County of San Francisco, 512 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir.2008) (citing Aguilera v. *185 Baca, 510 F.3d 1161, 1165-67 (9th Cir.2007)).

Ward’s failure to train claim fails as a matter of law. A failure to train can provide a basis for municipal liability only where it amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom the officials come in contact. City of Canton, Ohio v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378, 388-89 , 109 S.Ct. 1197 , 103 L.Ed.2d 412 (1989); Price v. Sery, 513 F.3d 962, 973 (9th Cir.2008). In addition, “the identified deficiency…

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.