From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. City of Santa Monica

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 19, 2006
185 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2006)

Summary

dismissing with prejudice pro se plaintiff's due process claims arising from parking tickets he received in Santa Monica because California provides an "adequate and prompt post-deprivation remedy"

Summary of this case from Damiano v. City of S.F.

Opinion

Submitted June 12, 2006.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

C. Edward Moore, Santa Monica, CA, pro se.

Debra S. Kanoff, Esq., Office of the City Attorney, Santa Monica, CA, Paul C. Epstein, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-08720-JVS.

Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

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.

C. Edward Moore appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection violations arising from parking tickets he received in Santa Monica. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim, Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore's equal protection claim alleging that urban dwellers receive more parking tickets than suburban and rural dwellers. See Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598, 608-10, 105 S.Ct. 1524, 84 L.Ed.2d 547 (1985) (a mere failure of those who administer the law to treat equally all persons who violate the law does not constitute a denial of equal protection).

The district court also properly dismissed Moore's due process claims as the State of California provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 532, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984); see also Cal. Veh.Code § § 4025 & 40215(b).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore's action without leave to amend, because the deficiencies in the complaint could not be cured. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc).

Moore's remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Moore v. City of Santa Monica

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jun 19, 2006
185 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2006)

dismissing with prejudice pro se plaintiff's due process claims arising from parking tickets he received in Santa Monica because California provides an "adequate and prompt post-deprivation remedy"

Summary of this case from Damiano v. City of S.F.
Case details for

Moore v. City of Santa Monica

Case Details

Full title:C. Edward MOORE, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. CITY OF SANTA MONICA…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jun 19, 2006

Citations

185 F. App'x 661 (9th Cir. 2006)

Citing Cases

Richards v. Tumlin

Further, in an unpublished authority, the Ninth Circuit has held that California law provides sufficient…

Damiano v. City of S.F.

; Moore v. City of Santa Monica, No. 2:04-cv-8720-JVS, [Dkt. Nos. 30, 33] (C.D. Cal. May 18, 2005), aff'd,…