Richard Glair v. City of Los Angeles , 437 F. App'x 603 ( 2011 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 09 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD J. GLAIR, No. 10-55843
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-06450-R-RNB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2011 **
Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Richard J. Glair appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(2) action alleging civil rights violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nelson v. Heiss, 271
F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed this action because, viewing the
allegations as true and in the light most favorable to Glair, the allegations in the
complaint and the proposed first amended complaint were insufficient to state a
claim for relief. See Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283,
1300-01 (9th Cir. 1999) (elements of a First Amendment claim); Dooley v. Reiss,
736 F.2d 1392, 1395-96 (9th Cir. 1984) (allegations that defendants conspired to
commit perjury and to conceal evidence failed to state a claim for relief under
section 1985(2) because alleged actions did not influence or seek to influence a
juror by force, intimidation, or threat); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268
(9th Cir. 1982) (“Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in civil
rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 10-55843