Fredericks v. Wright

Fredericks v. Wright - RICHARD FREDERICKS...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
RICHARD FREDERICKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GARY WRIGHT; GEORGE BURKE; CITY OF FOREST GROVE;  and JOHN DOE, a fictitious person, Defendants-Appellees. No. 94-35494 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 1231 January 11, 1995,  **  Submitted  **  The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir. R. 34-4. Accordingly,  Fredericks's request for oral argument is denied. January 20, 1995, FILED  NOTICE: [*1]  THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED TO  OR BY THE COURTS OF THIS CIRCUIT EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY THE 9TH CIR. R. 36-3.  SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: Reported in Table Case Format at:  46 F.3d 1141, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 7222 Certiorari Denied June 5, 1995, Reported at:  1995 U.S. LEXIS 3817 PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. D.C. No. CV-93-01294- HJF. Helen J. Frye, District Judge, Presiding.  DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED.  CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff arrestee appealed the order of the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants, the city and arresting police officers, in his 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his U.S. Const. amend. IV rights by arresting him in his home without an arrest warrant and his state tort claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. OVERVIEW: Plaintiff arrestee was arrested at his home on charges of burglary, assault, harassment, and criminal mischief. Later, plaintiff filed an action under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 against defendants, the city and arresting police officers, for violating his constitutional rights by arresting him in his home without an arrest warrant and state tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiff appealed the district court's award of summary judgment to defendants, and the court affirmed. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that at the time of the arrest it was not clearly established that a warrantless arrest of someone who voluntarily appeared at his doorway violated U.S. Const. amend. IV . The court ruled that as defendant arresting officers could have reasonably believed that their actions were lawful, they were entitled to qualified immunity and thus there was no liability as to defendant city. The court concluded that the district court did not err in dismissing the state tort claims where none of the alleged incidents were extraordinary
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
transgressions of the bounds of socially tolerable conduct. OUTCOME:
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/13/2008 for the course CJ 275 taught by Professor Dow during the Spring '08 term at Michigan State University.

Page1 / 7

Fredericks v. Wright - RICHARD FREDERICKS...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online