Opinion
No. 18-16940
05-23-2019
JOHN HENNEBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWARK; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-01905-JCS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Joseph C. Spero, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
John Henneberry appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). DeGrassi v. City of Glendora, 207 F.3d 636, 644 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Henneberry's action arising from the reading of his letters at city council meetings because Henneberry failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims. See Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam) (elements of an equal protection "class of one" claim); Heffron v. Int'l Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U.S. 640, 647 (1981) (First Amendment does not guarantee the right to communicate one's views at all times and places or in any manner that may be desired); Kindt v. Santa Monica Rent Control Bd., 67 F.3d 266, 269-71 (9th Cir. 1995) (a city council may impose time, place, and manner restrictions on speech so long as they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral).
AFFIRMED.