Jesus Cortez v. County of Alameda , 580 F. App'x 565 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 24 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESUS CORTEZ; ENRIQUE No. 12-16669
GONZALEZ; ALFREDO ESQUIVEZ;
LUIS PEREZ; ABELINO ESPINOZA; D.C. No. 4:11-cv-03199-YGR
MANUEL DUENAS; EDUARDO
LASCANO; RAMON PEREZ; JOSE
GARCIA; SOCORRO ZENDEJAS; MEMORANDUM*
PABLO DUENAS,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; ALAMEDA
COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
GREGORY J. AHERN, Sheriff; DEAN N.
STAVERT; HAL BANCROFT; JOHN
KRIEGE; GARY PARKHAM; MIKE
BUSH; DALE SILVA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2014
San Francisco, California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs-Appellants are Hispanic homeowners in Hayward, California, who
allege that the County of Alameda has selectively enforced a zoning ordinance
against them, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They assert that the county
defendants are selectively enforcing the ordinance against them. They have not,
however, alleged that there are any similarly situated non-Hispanic homeowners
who are violating the ordinance but are not being cited. They therefore cannot
make out a selective enforcement claim against the county defendants. See
Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 1995). California state
law concerning the effect of deed restrictions is not relevant to any federal claim.
Plaintiffs also allege violations of § 1983 by individual members of the
homeowners association but allege no facts to support a conspiracy or any other
theory of state action on the part of the homeowner association defendants. See
Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir. 2002) (requiring conspiracy or joint
action with a state actor to hold liable a private individual under § 1983).
Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the complaint as failing to
adequately allege any federal claim upon which relief could be granted.
AFFIRMED.
2