Fowler v. U.S. Bank National , 362 F. App'x 682 ( 2010 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 14 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY D. FOWLER, No. 08-35025
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-07-5589-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
U.S. BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2009 **
Seattle, Washington
Before: GOULD and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges, and BENITEZ, *** District
Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Roger T. Benitez, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of California, sitting by designation.
Billy D. Fowler appeals pro se from a district court’s judgment finding no
violation of Fowler’s rights under the United States or Washington State
Constitutions. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a district court’s dismissal, grant of summary judgment, and denial of remand
to state court. Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology, Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1218 (9th
Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). We affirm.
Fowler alleged, in a state court complaint removed to federal court, that
defendants accessed his bank records in violation of his rights under the United
States and Washington State Constitutions. Fowler’s bank records were accessed
in the course of a criminal investigation pursuant to orders issued by a state court
judge.
The district court correctly concluded that Fowler’s claims under the United
States and Washington State Constitutions failed. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S.
435, 442-43 (1976) (finding no reasonable expectation of privacy in bank records);
Reid v. Pierce County, 961 P.2d 333, 343 (Wash. 1998) (refusing to create a cause
of action under article I, § 7 of the Washington Constitution). The district court
also properly dismissed claims against the bank defendants because they are not
state actors. Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Med. Ctr., 192 F.3d 826, 837-38 (9th
Cir. 1999). Finally, the district court properly denied Fowler’s motion to remand
2
to state court because the complaint stated federal claims. Arpin v. Santa Clara
Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 925 (9th Cir. 2001) (finding 42 U.S.C. §
1983 must be utilized to raise a violation of a constitutional right).
AFFIRMED.
3