Case ID: f-appx_437/html/0603-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Richard J. GLAIR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-55843.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 9, 2011.
    Richard J. Glair, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Amy Field, Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    
      Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Richard J. Glair appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(2) action alleging civil rights violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed this action because, viewing the allegations as true and in the light most favorable to Glair, the allegations in the complaint and the proposed first amended complaint were insufficient to state a claim for relief. See Mendocino Envtl. Ctr. v. Mendocino Cnty., 192 F.3d 1283, 1300-01 (9th Cir.1999) (elements of a First Amendment claim); Dooley v. Reiss, 736 F.2d 1392, 1395-96 (9th Cir.1984) (allegations that defendants conspired to commit perjury and to conceal evidence failed to state a claim for relief under section 1985(2) because alleged actions did not influence or seek to influence a juror by force, intimidation, or threat); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir.1982) (“Vague and conclu-sory allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.”).

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