Stephen Turner v. Susie Larsen ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN B. TURNER, No. 12-16518
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-06191-PJH
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SUSIE LARSEN, Esq., Individually; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 24, 2013 **
Before: ALARCÓN, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Stephen B. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his civil
rights in connection with his parole revocation hearing. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of an action for failure
*
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).
to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Turner’s § 1983 claim because Turner
failed to allege facts showing that defendants acted under color of state law. See
Price v. State of Hawaii, 939 F.2d 702, 707-08 (9th Cir. 1991) (private parties do
not generally act under color of state law for § 1983 purposes); see also Polk
County v. Dodson, 454 U.S. 312, 325 (1981) (private attorney, even if appointed
and paid for by the state, is not acting under color of state law when performing a
lawyer’s traditional role as counsel to a defendant).
The district court properly dismissed Turner’s § 1985(3) claim because
Turner failed to allege facts showing that a discriminatory animus motivated the
alleged conspiracy to deprive him of his rights. See, e.g., RK Ventures, Inc. v. City
of Seattle, 307 F.3d 1045, 1056 (9th Cir. 2002) (“To bring a cause of action
successfully under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must demonstrate a deprivation of a right
motivated by some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously
discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise
jurisdiction over Turner’s state law claims. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police
2 12-16518
Dep’t, 40 F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994) (“When . . . the court dismisses the
federal claim leaving only state claims for resolution, the court should decline
jurisdiction over the state claims and dismiss them without prejudice.”).
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16518