Case ID: f-appx_443/html/0243-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel Eugene RUFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William R. ZUMWALT; Sandy R. Roper, Defendants-Appellees, and Mark Sherman, Planner; Kings County, Defendants.
    No. 10-15080.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted July 13, 2011.
    Filed July 15, 2011.
    Kevin Gerard Little, Attorney at Law, Fresno, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Leslie M. Dillahunty, Weakley, Arendt & McGuire LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for Northern Texas, Dallas, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Daniel Ruff cross-appeals from the district court’s judgment following a jury ver-diet in his favor as to his procedural due process claim against Kings County and several named county officials, but adverse as to his substantive due process and equal protection claims. Ruff contends that the district court erred in rejecting his requested jury instruction stating that amendments to county general plans are not valid unless published post adoption. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

California Government Code section 65356 provides that general plans shall be amended by resolution. Because only ordinances, and not resolutions, are subject to the publication requirement of section 25124 of the California Government Code, the district court did not err in rejecting Ruffs requested instruction that a resolution to amend a county’s general plan is not valid unless published after adoption. Midway Orchards v. County of Butte, 220 Cal.App.3d 765, 774-75, 779, 269 Cal.Rptr. 796 (1990); City of Sausalito v. County of Marin, 12 Cal.App.3d 550, 565-66, 90 Cal.Rptr. 843 (1970).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.