Marcus v. McCollum

394 F.3d 813 (2004)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Marcus v. McCollum

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
394 F.3d 813 (2004)

Facts

Carl McCollum (defendant) loaned money to Diana Marcus (plaintiff). As security for the loan, Marcus pledged the title to an automobile. Thereafter, McCollum sought to repossess the automobile. McCollum drove to Marcus’s residence accompanied by a driver from a wrecker service (defendant) to tow the automobile. As McCollum approached the residence, he observed an on-duty Shawnee police officer nearby named Mason Wilson (defendant). McCollum informed Wilson that he planned to repossess the automobile. Although McCollum did not have the title on hand, McCollum brought a piece of paper with a vehicle identification number (VIN), which matched the VIN for a Pontiac in Marcus’s driveway. Marcus and her minor son (plaintiff) noticed McCollum at their residence, ran outside, and began arguing loudly with McCollum. Marcus contended that she had pledged the title to a different car located elsewhere, not the Pontiac owned by her husband (plaintiff). Although the parties disagreed as to whether Wilson became involved on his own or at McCollum’s direction, Wilson called for backup, and three more officers arrived (defendants). The officers allowed McCollum to repossess the automobile and told the Marcuses to take it up in small-claims court. The Marcuses then brought a federal civil-rights claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against McCollum, the wrecker service, the officers, and the City of Shawnee. The Marcuses alleged that the officers had violated their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and freedom from unreasonable search by not asking for additional documentation from McCollum, forcibly poking Marcus’s son in the chest, threatening to throw them in jail, and staying until the repossession had been completed. The City of Shawnee moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted on the ground that the officers’ conduct did not amount to the state action required to maintain the civil-rights claim. Specifically, the City of Shawnee’s argument relied on Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp., which factually resembled the Marcuses’ situation but involved a public street and no dispute regarding the collateral. The Marcuses appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Seymour, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 736,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 736,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership