Case ID: f-appx_387/html/0796-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kerima LEWIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BERKELEY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 09-16126.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted April 16, 2010.
    Filed July 16, 2010.
    
      Adam Martin Zolonz, Zolonz and Associates, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Zachary D. Cowan, Acting City, Kristy Lee Van Herick, Deputy City, Office of the City Attorney, Berkeley, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Raner C. Collins, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff-Appellant Kerima Lewis appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and its counterpart in the California Constitution, see Cal. Const, art. I, § 7. Lewis argues the district court should not have dismissed her complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The district court properly determined that Lewis’s complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to state a claim for a violation of equal protection. The allegations of discriminatory animus in Lewis’s complaint are all legal conclusions couched as factual allegations that the district court was not bound to accept as true. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007).

The court properly took judicial notice of public records to establish that the City amended its zoning ordinance in 1998, revoked the U-Haul facility’s use permit in 2007, and stated legitimate, race-neutral reasons for doing so. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689-90 (9th Cir.2001). The court did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 802. The City did not offer the resolution to prove the truth of the statements it contained concerning complaints that had been made against the U-Haul facility. The City offered the resolution only to show that it had stated legitimate reasons for revoking the U-Haul facility’s use permit. See Las Vegas Nightlife, Inc. v. Clark County, 38 F.3d 1100, 1102 (9th Cir.1994).

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