From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morrow v. City of San Diego

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 21, 2018
No. 17-56642 (9th Cir. Jun. 21, 2018)

Opinion

No. 17-56642

06-21-2018

FLOYD L. MORROW; MARLENE MORROW, individually, as taxpayers of the City of San Diego, State of California, and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN DIEGO, a charter city, Defendant-Appellee, and MANDEL E. HIMELSTEIN, an individual; DOES 1-100, Defendants.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01497-BAS-KSC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Cynthia A. Bashant, District Judge, Presiding Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Floyd L. Morrow and Marlene Morrow appeal from the district court's summary judgment in their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging an equal protection claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Davis v. City of Las Vegas, 478 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because the Morrows failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant's actions did not have a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest, or whether it had a discriminatory effect or purpose. See Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 920 (9th Cir. 2012) (to succeed on a selective enforcement claim under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, "a plaintiff must demonstrate that enforcement had a discriminatory effect and [that those enforcing the statute] were motivated by a discriminatory purpose." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Lockary v. Kayfetz, 917 F.2d 1150, 1155 (9th Cir. 1990) (a law that does not implicate a fundamental right or suspect classification need only some rational relationship to a legitimate state interest).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Morrow v. City of San Diego

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Jun 21, 2018
No. 17-56642 (9th Cir. Jun. 21, 2018)
Case details for

Morrow v. City of San Diego

Case Details

Full title:FLOYD L. MORROW; MARLENE MORROW, individually, as taxpayers of the City of…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Jun 21, 2018

Citations

No. 17-56642 (9th Cir. Jun. 21, 2018)