Unpublished Disposition, 860 F.2d 1090 (9th Cir. 1988)

MEMORANDUM^** 

Dieter Van Arsdale, pro se, brought suit against the City of Bellingham under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His complaint stated that he was arrested on 7:30 P.M., February 13, 1982 by the police of the city. His 1975 Pontiac was nearby and searched by the officers, but not impounded. The arresting officers heard the victim of Van Arsdale's assault say, "I owe you one."

Van Arsdale was taken to jail. The car was left where it was. In the course of the next three days, with Van Arsdale still in jail, someone vandalized the car damaging it beyond repair and stealing the plaintiff's cassettes.

Van Arsdale's complaint charges that the city police were negligent in not having impounded the car or otherwise taken steps for its protection. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and denied leave to amend. We agree.

Under Washington law, the police officers could have impounded plaintiff's car as part of their "community caretaking function" if removal was necessary (because the car was abandoned, impeded traffic, posed a threat to public safety, or was itself threatened by vandalism or theft of its contents) and neither the owner nor his family or friends could remove it. See State v. Simpson, 622 P.2d 1199 (Washington, 1980); see also South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 368-69 (1976). In this case, the threat from the victim--"I owe you one"--was not a specific threat to the car, nor to any of plaintiff's property for that matter. The police officers had no reason to suspect that the car was in danger. The facts alleged by Van Arsdale do not amount to allegations of deliberate indifference to Van Arsdale's welfare or of gross negligence. Cf. Jean Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, No. 87-1969, slip. op. (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 1988); Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986).

AFFIRMED.