Peter Harrell v. Costco , 422 F. App'x 635 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER T. HARRELL, No. 10-35068
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-03092-PA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COSTCO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 8, 2011 **
Before: FARRIS, O’SCANNLAIN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Peter T. Harrell appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment
in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants unlawfully accused him of
theft. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Olsen v.
Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any
*
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).
ground supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th
Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 claims because defendants’ complaint to the police and execution of the
sworn criminal complaint, without more, did not convert them into state actors.
See Collins v. Womancare, 878 F.2d 1145, 1155 (9th Cir. 1989).
Summary judgment was properly granted on the malicious prosecution claim
because Harrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the
prosecutors’ decisions were influenced by any information misreported or withheld
by defendants. See Richer v. Poisson, 903 P.2d 932, 935 (Or. Ct. App. 1995).
Summary judgment was properly granted on the false arrest and false
imprisonment claims because Harrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether he was unlawfully confined. See Hiber v. Creditors Collection Serv.
of Lincoln Cnty., Inc., 961 P.2d 898, 901 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the slander, libel,
and defamation claims because Harrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material
fact as to whether defendants’ statements were not privileged. See DeLong v. Yu
Enters., Inc., 47 P.3d 8, 10 (Or. 2002).
2 10-35068
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the intentional
infliction of emotional distress claim because Harrell failed to raise a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether defendants engaged in outrageous conduct. See
House v. Hicks, 179 P.3d 730, 736-37 (Or. Ct. App. 2008).
The district court properly granted summary judgment on the negligence
claims because Harrell failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
defendants’ conduct “foreseeably pose[d] an unreasonable risk of harm” to him.
Cain v. Rijken, 717 P.2d 140, 145 (Or. 1986).
We are unpersuaded by Harrell’s remaining contentions, including his
contention that the district court abused its discretion by denying him further
discovery.
Harrell’s “Objection and Motion to Strike” is granted in part as to pages
141-42 of the supplemental excerpts of record and footnotes 4-5 on page 23 of the
answering brief. The “Objection and Motion to Strike” is otherwise denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-35068