Vicki Chang v. Andrew Vanderwielen

── Vicki Chang v. Andrew Vanderwielen ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 11 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICKI CHANG, No. 23-35284 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00013-SKV v. MEMORANDUM* ANDREW VANDERWIELEN, Trooper, Washington State Patrol; BRIAN HUNT, Officer, Seattle Police Department; JANE GUREVICH, Security Guard, University of Washington; EDWARD COLLINS, Trooper, Washington State Patrol; RIDDHI KOTHARI, Doctor, University of Washington; CITY OF SEATTLE, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Sarah Kate Vaughan, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Submitted May 11, 2026** San Francisco, California Before: O'SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).  Vicki Chang appeals pro se from the district court’s entry of judgment in her action alleging 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law claims arising from her forcible removal from the University of Washington Harborview Medical Center and a subsequent visit to the same hospital. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review de novo. See Harper v. Nedd, 71 F.4th 1181, 1184 (9th Cir. 2023) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2006) (summary judgment). We affirm. Summary judgment was proper on the Fourth Amendment claims alleging that defendants Vanderwielen and Gurevich used excessive force. The district court properly applied the facts of the altercation as depicted by the videotape of the event and other relevant circumstances. Under the totality of the circumstances, the defendants’ use of force was minimal and objectively reasonable. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378-81 (2007) (holding that, absent evidence that the videotape “differs from what actually happened”, the court should “view[] the facts in the light depicted by the videotape” of the event when ruling on a motion for summary judgment); Williamson v. City of Nat’l City, 23 F.4th 1146, 1149-53 (9th Cir. 2022) (applying the unreasonable force standard and videotape rule to find only minimal force where the protester resisted removal and went limp, and then the officers lifted the protestor by her arms and dragged her through the doorway by her wrist and forearm). 2  The district court properly dismissed the Fourth Amendment claim alleging that defendant Vanderwielen seized Chang’s property. Chang failed to allege facts showing that Vanderwielen meaningfully interfered with her possessory interest in her purse. See United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (explaining that a Fourth Amendment “seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Dismissal was also proper on the Fourteenth Amendment claim alleging that Vanderwielen damaged Chang’s purse. Chang cannot allege a Fourteenth Amendment claim because state law provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy for property loss caused by the state. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding that an unauthorized intent