Larry Synclair, Sr. v. County of Fresno, et al, No. 09-15337 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED DEC 16 2010 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LARRY SYNCLAIR, SR., individually and as a parent of Larry Synclair, Jr., a minor, No. 09-15337 D.C. No. 1:01-cv-06546-AWIDLB Plaintiff - Appellant, MEMORANDUM * v. COUNTY OF FRESNO; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2010 Before: ** GOODWIN, WALLACE, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Larry Synclair, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action claiming that defendants violated his * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). ** Fourteenth Amendment rights to procedural and substantive due process when they did not take steps to contact federal officials in connection with the alleged international parental abduction of his son. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Aguilera v. Baca, 510 F.3d 1161, 1167 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment to defendants because Synclair s interest in enforcing a custody order did not rise to the level of an entitlement protected by the Due Process Clause. The enforcement action Synclair sought to bring was not sufficiently specific and the defendant government officials had discretion to deny enforcement. See Town of Castle Rock, Colo. v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748, 756 (2005) (explaining that a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion. ); see also United States v. Wilkerson, 208 F.3d 794, 800 (9th Cir. 2000) (describing the broad discretion prosecutors are afforded over decisions to investigate or pursue criminal charges). AFFIRMED. 2 09-15337

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.