Terrance Marsh v. Afscme Local 3299 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 6 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TERRANCE MARSH; SANDI EDDE;       No. 21-15309
    THEODORE MENDOZA; REBECCA VAN
    ANTWERP; LINDSAY MACOMBER;        D.C. No.
    KAREN JORDAN; STACEY DAVIDSON; 2:19-cv-02382-JAM-DB
    BARBARA GROSSE; TAMELA DIOSO;
    KISKA CARTER,
    MEMORANDUM *
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    AFSCME LOCAL 3299; MICHAEL V.
    DRAKE, M.D., in his official capacity as
    President of the University of California;
    ROB BONTA, in his official capacity as
    Attorney General of California,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted July 5, 2023**
    Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
    *
    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).
    Plaintiffs Terrance Marsh, Sandi Edde, Theodore Mendoza, Rebecca Van
    Antwerp, Lindsay Macomber, Karen Jordan, Stacey Davidson, Barbara Grosse,
    Tamela Dioso, and Kiska Carter appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their
    
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that the deduction of union membership dues
    from their pay violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Janus v.
    American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31,
    ___U.S.___, 
    138 S. Ct. 2448 (2018)
    . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo. Wright v. SEIU Local 503, 
    48 F.4th 1112
    , 1118 n.3
    (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 
    143 S. Ct. 749 (2023)
    . We may affirm on any ground
    supported by the record. Ochoa v. Public Consulting Group, Inc., 
    48 F.4th 1102
    ,
    1106 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, 
    143 S. Ct. 783 (2023)
    . We affirm.1
    The district court properly dismissed as moot the First and Fourteenth
    Amendment claims seeking prospective relief. Plaintiffs resigned from the union
    and were no longer paying dues. Plaintiffs merely speculated that the union might
    forge membership agreements in the future. Allegations of past injury, alone, with
    only the potential for future unauthorized dues deductions are too speculative to
    support a claim for prospective relief. Wright, 48 F.4th at 1118-20; see Bain v.
    Cal. Teachers Ass’n, 
    891 F.3d 1206
    , 1214 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that a teacher’s
    1
    This appeal has been held in abeyance since February 10, 2022, pending
    issuance of the mandates in Nos. 20-56045, Savas v. CSLEA and 20-36076,
    Zielinski v. SEIU, Local 503, or further order of this court. The stay is lifted.
    2
    claim was moot where she had cancelled her union membership and merely
    speculated that she might be subject to union dues in the future).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking the class allegations
    made for the first time in the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not seek
    leave of the court. Nor did the prior dismissal order allow plaintiffs to add class
    claims to the second amended complaint. Moreover, plaintiffs could not revive
    their already-moot claims by amending to add new claims. See Bain, 891 F.3d at
    1213-14, 1216-18 (holding that the plaintiffs could not revive their moot claims by
    adding a new plea for restitution or by seeking to add an organizational plaintiff).
    In any event, Janus did not give plaintiffs a First Amendment right to disregard the
    terms of their private agreements to join the union and pay dues. Belgau v. Inslee,
    
    975 F.3d 940
    , 944, 950-51 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 
    141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021)
    .
    Nor did it require that the government independently verify a union’s certification
    of membership and dues deductions. Wright, 48 F.4th at 1125.
    The district court properly dismissed for failure to state a claim the civil
    rights claims seeking retrospective relief from the union. The union was not a state
    actor when it certified to the state employers that plaintiffs had agreed to pay dues.
    Id. at 1121-25; Belgau, 975 F.3d at 946-49.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-15309

Filed Date: 7/6/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/6/2023