Maria Quezambra v. udw/afscme Local 3930 ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 7 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    MARIA QUEZAMBRA,                                No.    20-55643
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No.
    8:19-cv-00927-JLS-JEM
    v.
    UNITED DOMESTIC WORKERS OF                   MEMORANDUM*
    AMERICA, AFSCME LOCAL 3930, a labor
    organization; ORANGE COUNTY, a
    political subdivision of the State of
    California; MALIA COHEN, in her official
    capacity as State Controller of the State of
    California; ROB BONTA, in his official
    capacity as Attorney General of California,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Josephine L. Staton, 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).
    Maria Quezambra appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging that the unauthorized deduction of union dues from
    her state pay violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Janus v.
    Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. and Mun. Emps., 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 Loc. 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. Pub. Consulting Grp., Inc., 
    48 F.4th 1102
    , 1106 (9th Cir. 2022),
    cert. denied, 
    143 S. Ct. 783 (2023)
    . We affirm.1
    Quezambra lacked standing to raise First Amendment claims for prospective
    relief to prevent future unauthorized deductions of union dues. Allegations of past
    injury alone, without continuing adverse effects, will not support standing. Wright,
    48 F.4th at 1120.
    The district court properly dismissed the civil rights claims alleged against
    the union. The union was not a state actor when it notified the state to deduct dues,
    even if there was forgery in the union membership process. Id. at 1121; Belgau v.
    Inslee, 
    975 F.3d 940
    , 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 
    141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021)
    .
    The state officials, who were sued in their official capacity, are not persons
    1
    This appeal has been held in abeyance since February 10, 2022, pending
    issuance of the mandate in No. 20-36076, Zielinski v. SEIU, Local 503, or further
    order of this court. The stay is lifted.
    2
    for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 
    491 U.S. 58
    , 71
    (1989). Therefore, Quezambra cannot state civil rights damage claims against the
    state officials. 
    Id.
    To the extent she raised such a claim, Quezambra failed to state a Fourteenth
    Amendment procedural due process claim against the state officials and county
    because she did not allege that they intended to withhold unauthorized dues.
    Ochoa, 48 F.4th at 1110-11. An official’s negligent act that causes “unintended
    loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property” does not state a due process claim. Id.
    at 1110 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the government’s “reliance on
    the union’s representations in the mistaken belief that they were accurate does not
    rise to the level of a Due Process Clause violation.” Id. at 1111. Moreover,
    Quezambra failed to allege facts to establish that a county policy or custom caused
    constitutional injuries. See Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 
    833 F.3d 1060
    , 1073-76
    (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability
    under Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 
    436 U.S. 658
     (1978)). In any event, “Janus
    imposes no affirmative duty on government entities to ensure that membership
    agreements and dues deductions are genuine.” Wright, 48 F.4th at 1125.
    AFFIRMED.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-55643

Filed Date: 7/7/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/7/2023