Case ID: f-appx_384/html/0661-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John J. RIZZI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF INDIAN WELLS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 09-55018.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 21, 2010.
    John J. Rizzi, Indian Wells, CA, pro se.
    Karl Patrick Schlecht, Kimball Tirey & St. John, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John J. Rizzi appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause and California state law. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo dismissal for failure to state a claim, and can affirm on any basis fairly supported by the record. Vestar Development II, LLC v. General Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

Dismissal of Rizzi’s equal protection claim was proper because there is a “reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for” defendants’ subsidized housing classification scheme. Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 320, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993); see also Roth v. Garcia Marquez, 942 F.2d 617, 625 n. 1 (9th Cir.1991) (“[I]f a complaint is accompanied by attached documents, the court is not limited by the allegations contained in the complaint.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Rizzi’s supplemental state law claim once it had granted judgment on the federal claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Moore v. Kayport Package Express, Inc., 885 F.2d 531, 537 (9th Cir.1989).

Rizzi’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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