Unpublished Disposition, 923 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1991)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 923 F.2d 861 (9th Cir. 1991) William E. FEUCHT, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Vernal TARNO, Paul D. Burgett, District Attorney, Robert J.Elliot, and wife, Rosa Road, Bandon, Bill Nagel, and wife,Rosa Road, Bandon, Andy Pritt, and wife, Rt. 1, Box 2270,Rosa Road, Bandon, Defendants-Appellees

No. 90-35081.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 1991.* Decided Jan. 25, 1991.

Before JAMES R. BROWNING, CANBY and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

William Feucht appeals the district court's dismissal of his claims against his neighbors.1  We affirm.

To the extent that Feucht's action is based on state law claims, we dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

To the extent Feucht's claims constitute an action to redress constitutional violations pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, we dismiss for failure to state a claim. To state a claim under section 1983, Feucht must allege "the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law." West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988). Feucht does not allege, nor is there any indication, that the defendants are acting under color of state law. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal of this action is

AFFIRMED.

 **

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Cir.R. 36-3

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

 1

Feucht apparently sought relief from a prior judgment under Rule 60(b), but the district court, according liberal treatment to Feucht's pleading, treated his motion as a new action. The result on this appeal is the same whether Feucht's pleading is viewed as a new complaint or as a Rule 60(b) motion. Either way, the district court was correct in denying relief, for the reasons stated above

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.