Bonnie Metcalf, Michael Mays Robert Mitchell, a Minor, Through His Guardian Ad Litem Bonnie Metcalf v. County of Sutter, a Political Subdivision of the State of California Ray Algernon Gordon
Docket: 92-16712
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 2, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 states that non-published dispositions should not be cited except under specific legal doctrines. In Metcalf v. County of Sutter, Bonnie Metcalf, her son Robert, and Michael Mays appealed a district court's summary judgment favoring Sutter County officials in a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 action, alleging due process and Fourth Amendment violations related to their eviction after Metcalf was fired as a caretaker. The court affirmed the summary judgment.
Metcalf was employed by Ray Gordon in 1987 and lived with his elderly mother. After Metcalf was fired on May 1, 1989, Gordon notified her of the end of her tenancy. Disputes arose regarding their continued residence, leading Gordon to file an unlawful detainer action. On July 14, 1989, when Gordon attempted to enter the house, Metcalf locked him out and called the police. Upon arrival, deputies, after consulting a deputy district attorney, determined Metcalf had no right to stay, citing concerns for Gordon's mother's welfare and the condition of the house.
The deputies allowed Metcalf, her son, and Mays time to gather belongings before leaving. The plaintiffs filed a lawsuit, but the court ruled that even if they had established due process rights, they lacked a Section 1983 claim due to the availability of adequate state law remedies. The court also upheld the summary judgment regarding the Fourth Amendment claim.
The plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim is deemed arguable, but the officials' belief that terminated ex-employee Metcalf posed a safety threat to Mrs. Gordon was reasonable, based on the house's condition and their deteriorating relationship. Consequently, the deputies and deputy district attorney are granted qualified immunity. The plaintiffs' claims against the County and the supervisors for Monell violations and inadequate training are rejected. They failed to demonstrate that the deputies violated constitutional rights, and any alleged training deficiencies did not directly contribute to a constitutional injury, as there was no clear standard for police conduct in such situations. The district court's decision to dismiss the federal claims prior to trial was appropriate, leading to the dismissal of related state claims without prejudice. The judgment from the county court in favor of Gordon in the unlawful detainer action is noted, as Metcalf did not appear. This ruling is affirmed and not subject to publication or citation within the circuit, except as permitted by specific rules.
