Unpublished Disposition, 918 F.2d 181 (9th Cir. 1990)

 Annotate this Case
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 918 F.2d 181 (9th Cir. 1990)

Shane BOWLIN, Ray Bowlin, Mary Chamberlain, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.DESCHUTES COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State ofOregon, Lois Bristow Prante, Tom Throop, Dick Maudlin,Commissioners, Deschutes County, Oregon, Greg Brown,Deschutes County Deputy Sheriff, Officer Hamilton, DeschutesCounty Deputy Sheriff, John McMurren, Sisters Police Chief,and Nancy Jernigan, City of Sisters, John McMurren,Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-35185.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 8, 1990.* Decided Nov. 13, 1990.

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, POOLE and DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM** 

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants on their Sec. 1983 and state tort claims. Not only are the Sec. 1983 claims barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, but we find that none of plaintiffs' constitutional rights were violated. Summary judgment for the state claims is equally appropriate. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's opinion.

Both parties request attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. Plaintiffs do not prevail here and cannot recover fees. Prevailing defendants in a civil rights suit may be awarded attorneys' fees when the plaintiffs' action is "frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or ... the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so." Christianburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 420-21 (1978).

Plaintiffs' appeal was unreasonable and groundless. They had an opportunity to litigate this entire matter in state court. There were no Fourth Amendment or due process violations and the facts do not support the state law claims. Fees are awarded to the defendants. Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.

AFFIRMED.

 *

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

 **

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 Circuit Rule 36-3

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.