From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cortez v. Cnty. of Alameda

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 24, 2014
580 F. App'x 565 (9th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 12-16669 D.C. No. 4:11-cv-03199-YGR

06-24-2014

JESUS CORTEZ; ENRIQUE GONZALEZ; ALFREDO ESQUIVEZ; LUIS PEREZ; ABELINO ESPINOZA; MANUEL DUENAS; EDUARDO LASCANO; RAMON PEREZ; JOSE GARCIA; SOCORRO ZENDEJAS; PABLO DUENAS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT; GREGORY J. AHERN, Sheriff; DEAN N STAVERT; HAL BANCROFT; JOHN KRIEGE; GARY PARKHAM; MIKE BUSH; DALE SILVA, Defendants - Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION


MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding


Argued and Submitted June 13, 2014

San Francisco, California

Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs-Appellants are Hispanic homeowners in Hayward, California, who allege that the County of Alameda has selectively enforced a zoning ordinance against them, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They assert that the county defendants are selectively enforcing the ordinance against them. They have not, however, alleged that there are any similarly situated non-Hispanic homeowners who are violating the ordinance but are not being cited. They therefore cannot make out a selective enforcement claim against the county defendants. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 1995). California state law concerning the effect of deed restrictions is not relevant to any federal claim.

Plaintiffs also allege violations of § 1983 by individual members of the homeowners association but allege no facts to support a conspiracy or any other theory of state action on the part of the homeowner association defendants. See Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring conspiracy or joint action with a state actor to hold liable a private individual under § 1983).

Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the complaint as failing to adequately allege any federal claim upon which relief could be granted.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Cortez v. Cnty. of Alameda

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 24, 2014
580 F. App'x 565 (9th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Cortez v. Cnty. of Alameda

Case Details

Full title:JESUS CORTEZ; ENRIQUE GONZALEZ; ALFREDO ESQUIVEZ; LUIS PEREZ; ABELINO…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 24, 2014

Citations

580 F. App'x 565 (9th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Friends of Moon Creek v. Diamond Lake Improvement, Ass'n, Inc.

DLIA's actions are therefore not "state action" or "action under color of law" unless Plaintiffs can…

Friends of Moon Creek v. Diamond Lake Improvement, Ass'n, Inc.

DLIA's actions are therefore not "state action" or "action under color of law" unless Plaintiffs can…