Opinion
21-16541
08-24-2022
MELODIE DePIERRO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS POLICE PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION METRO, INC.; LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01481-GMN-VCF
Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Melodie DePierro appeals from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of union membership dues paid to Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, Inc. ("union"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Puri v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed DePierro's First Amendment claim for retrospective relief because the deduction of union membership dues arose from a private membership agreement between union and employee, and "private dues agreements do not trigger state action and independent constitutional scrutiny." Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied 141 S.Ct. 2795 (2021) (discussing state action); see id. at 950-52 (concluding that the Supreme Court's decision in Janus v. American Federation of State, County &Municipal Employees, Council 31, 138 S.Ct. 2448 (2018), did not extend a First Amendment right to avoid supporting the union and paying union dues that were agreed upon under voluntarily entered membership agreements); Knutson v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 771 F.3d 559, 565 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing mutual assent).
DePierro's claim for prospective relief is moot. DePierro is no longer a member of the union and defendants stopped deducting union membership dues. See Bain v. Cal. Teachers Ass'n, 891 F.3d 1206, 1211-14 (9th Cir. 2018) (explaining that plaintiffs' claims for prospective relief were moot when they resigned their union membership and presented no reasonable likelihood that they would rejoin the union in the future).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). DePierro's request for oral argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.