Summary
holding that the defendant bank did not violate plaintiff's due process rights by proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure sale of his property
Summary of this case from Miller v. Bank of Am., N.A.Opinion
No. 08-16839.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, see Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2), and therefore denies Nieves's motion for oral argument.
Filed December 8, 2009.
Reuben Nieves, Sacramento, CA, pro se.
Robert A. Bailey, Robin C. Campbell, Anglin, Flewelling, Rasmussen Campbell Trytten LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00988-MCE-GGH.
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Reuben Nieves appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging, inter alia, that the defendant banks violated his due process rights by proceeding with a non-judicial foreclosure sale on his property. "We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Nieves failed to allege facts demonstrating that the defendants' conduct constituted government action sufficient to support a claim under section 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). See Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 56, 119 S.Ct. 977, 143 L.Ed.2d 130 (1999) (explaining that extensive regulation does not convert a private company into a state actor liable under section 1983); Apao v. Bank of N.Y., 324 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2003) (concluding that a bank using a non-judicial foreclosure procedure provided by state law was not a government actor under • section 1983); Mathis v. Pac. Gas Elec. Co., 891 F.2d 1429, 1432 n. 3 (9th Cir. 1989) ("The standards for determining whether an action is governmental are the same whether the purported nexus is to the state or to the federal government.").
Nieves's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appellees' motions to take judicial notice are grantee'.