Opinion
19-16381
07-29-2021
MARK R. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KATE BIEKER, Chief Executive Officer Superior Court, County of Alameda; AFSCME LOCAL 2700, Defendants-Appellees, ROB BONTA, Attorney General, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05472-VC
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Mark R. Smith appeals from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of union membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Smith's First Amendment claim against AFSCME Local 2700 was proper because the deduction of union membership dues arose from the private membership agreement between AFSCME Local 2700 and Smith, 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, No. 20-1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021) (discussing state action).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.