James Battle v. Travel Lodge Motel ( 2012 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES ARTHUR BATTLE, Jr., No. 11-35327
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00818-RAJ
v.
MEMORANDUM *
TRAVEL LODGE MOTEL, John Doe; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 17, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, THOMAS, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
James Arthur Battle, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging defendants violated his
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
11-35327
constitutional rights during the period after his arrest and before his incarceration.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v.
Chung, 391 F3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 2004), and we affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Battle’s equal
protection claims because Battle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as
to whether defendants intentionally discriminated against him based upon his
membership in a protected class. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Barren v. Harrington,
152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order).
The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Battle’s due
process claims because Battle failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
whether defendants’ conduct “shocks the conscience.” County of Sacramento v.
Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845-49 (1998).
The district court properly granted summary judgment as to Battle’s
conspiracy claims because Battle failed to identify anyone with whom the
“defendant conspired, how they conspired, and how the conspiracy led to a
deprivation of [his] constitutional rights.” Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189, 1196
(9th Cir. 1997); see also Caldeira v. County of Kauai, 866 F.2d 1175, 1181-82 (9th
Cir. 1989) (“absence of a section 1983 deprivation of rights precludes a section
1985 claim predicated on the same allegations”).
2 11-35327
The district court also properly granted summary judgment as to Battle’s
claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241–42 because these criminal statutes do not provide a
private right of action. See Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir 1980)
(per curiam).
We do not consider matters not specifically raised and argued in the opening
brief, or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587
F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Battle’s remaining contentions, including those concerning evidentiary
issues, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-35327