Unpublished Disposition, 937 F.2d 613 (9th Cir. 1991)
Annotate this CaseDavid W. PARISH, Nancy Lou Parish, Plaintiffs-Appellants,v.TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., Brown & Herrick,Attorneys at Law, Mary J. Frey, Bruce Kelly Childers, JohnE. Herrick, Killian, Legg, Attorneys at Law, Wayne E. Legg,Vernon L. Nicholas, Udall, Shumway, Blackhurst, Allen, Lyons& Davis, Merle M. Allen, Jr., Charles J. Adornetto, State ofArizona, By and Through the Arizona Health Cost ContainmentSystem, Merabank, a Federal Savings Bank, Midland MortgageCo., Prince Realty, Inc., Carol Jorgensen, Blue ValleyMortgage Company, Lowell C. Peterson, V.P., Chicago TitleAgency of Arizona, Inc., Citibank, Planned ProtectionService of Arizona, Inc., Roger W. Rea, P.C., Attorney,Defendants-Appellees.
No. 90-16174.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 2, 1991.* Decided July 5, 1991.
Before KILKENNY, SNEED and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
The Parishes filed the instant action against numerous individual, professional, and corporate defendants, seeking damages based on the defendants' alleged fraud and conspiracy to deprive the Parishes of their property and constitutional rights. The district court granted the defendants' various motions to dismiss and/or for summary judgment, and the Parishes have appealed. We affirm.
Jurisdiction in the district court was predicated on 28 U.S.C. § 1343.1 However, there is no indication that any of the named defendants were or are state actors,2 see 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendment, upon which the Parishes appear to have based their putative federal claims, does not apply to acts of private parties. Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837 (1982); Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1147 (CA9 1989), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 865 (1990). For the same reason, the Parishes' bald allegations that these private defendants conspired to defraud them of their property do not give rise to any federal constitutional claims. Cf. Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1205 (CA9) (conclusory allegations that private parties conspired with state officials do not, without more, state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 995 (1988).
The district court based its judgment on the Parishes' failure to comply with local rules, the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, FRCivP 12(b) (6), and the failure to assert any basis of federal jurisdiction other than 28 U.S.C. § 1343. We affirm in all respects, and further conclude that the Parishes failed to allege or show anything which would constitute a violation of their civil rights by one acting under color of state law. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
The panel finds this case appropriate for submission without oral argument pursuant to FRAP 34(a) and CA9 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 CA9 Rule 36-3
Based on our review of the record and the facts as alleged by the Parishes in their complaint and related pleadings, no other possible bases for federal jurisdiction would be applicable to this action. For example, no federal question is presented, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity of citizenship between the parties was neither alleged nor shown. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Although originally a named party-defendant, the State of Arizona, by and through the Arizona Health Cost Containment System, was dismissed by the district court on Eleventh Amendment grounds on March 6, 1989. The Parishes neither challenged that ruling below nor contest its propriety on appeal
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.
