Hsieh v. Multnomah County Department of Community Services et al, No. 3:2020cv01758 - Document 29 (D. Or. 2021)
Court Description: Opinion and Order. (see order for details) Signed on 10/19/2021 by Judge Michael W. Mosman. (kms)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hsieh v. Multnomah County Department of Community Services et al Doc. 29 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION MARLENE MANLING HSIEH, Plaintiff, Case No. 3:20-cv-01758-MO v. MULTNOMAH COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, MULTNOMAH COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES, CHRISTIAN HOLDEN, Animal Control Officer II Multnomah County Animal Services, JEANETTE FARRELL, Field Service Supervisor Multnomah County Animal Services, JACKIE ROSE, Director of Multnomah County Animal Services at the time, KIM PEOPLES, Director of Multnomah County Department of Community Services at the time, OPINION AND ORDER Defendants. MOSMAN,J., On January 5, 2021 this Court, applying the doctrine of Younger abstention, STAYED Marlene Mangling Hsieh's 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for monetary damages pending resolution of her appeal for her conviction for animal abuse before the Oregon Court of Appeals. [ECF 18]. On September 9, 2021 the Court of Appeals issued its opinion affirming the trial court's decision. [ECF 28] Ex. 1. The Court of Appeals found no violation of Ms. Hseih's Fourth Amendment rights because the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment 1 - OPINION AND ORDER Dockets.Justia.com applied. [ECF 28] Ex. 1 at 16-17. Now that the state court has ruled, a stay is no longer proper under Younger abstention. See Arevalo v. Hennessy, 882 F.3d 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal citations omitted). Because the Court of Appeals found that Ms. Hsieh's Fourth Amendment rights were not violated, she no longer has a claim for $8.8 million in damages under§ 1983. Therefore, I DISMISS the complaint with prejudice. ··li1'-- DATED this_{'(_ day of October, 2021. 2 - OPINION AND ORDER
]]>
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.
