Opinion
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Para-Ruiz's request for oral argument is denied.
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Donald C. Ashmanskas, Magistrate Judge, Presiding.
Before O'SCANNLAIN, RYMER, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3.
Alvin and Shirley Clark appeal pro se the district court's judgment, on remand from this court, dismissing pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of Portland and Portland officials, alleging that the City violated the takings clause and their due process and equal protection rights when the City removed a planter box from their property. We review de novo the district court's Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal,see Stone v. Travelers Corp., 58 F.3d 434, 436-37 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.
To state a claim against a municipal entity under section 1983, a plaintiff must allege that the constitutional violations are the result of an official policy or practice. See Monnell v. Department of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss. See Rosenbaum v. Syntex Corp. (In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig.), 95 F.3d 922, 926 (9th Cir.1996). On remand from this court, the Clarks were provided an opportunity to amend their complaint to allege that the purported due process violations were the result of an official policy or practice. The Clarks, however, failed to specifically allege such an official policy. The district court did not err, therefore, in dismissing the claim. See id.
Furthermore, the district court did not err in dismissing the Clarks' remaining causes of action for failure to state a claim. See San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16 (1973) (income level is not a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause); Macri v. King County, 126 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir.1997) ("[i]f a state has an adequate procedure for compensation, until this procedure has been exhausted and the plaintiff denied compensation, no taking has occurred"),cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1153, 118 S.Ct. 1178, 140 L.Ed.2d 186 (1998). Moreover, the Clarks conceded that their action was not against any individuals, hence the dismissal of those claims was not error. Accordingly, the district court's dismissal is
AFFIRMED.