NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA QUEZAMBRA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

UNITED DOMESTIC WORKERS OF 

AMERICA, AFSCME LOCAL 3930, a labor 

organization; ORANGE COUNTY, a 

political subdivision of the State of 

California; MALIA COHEN, in her official 

capacity as State Controller of the State of 

California; ROB BONTA, in his official

capacity as Attorney General of California, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 20-55643 

D.C. No. 

8:19-cv-00927-JLS-JEM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 5, 2023**

Before: WALLACE, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 7 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Maria Quezambra appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the unauthorized deduction of union dues from 

her state pay violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights under Janus v. 

Am. Fed’n of State, Cnty. and Mun. Emps., Council 31, ___U.S.___, 138 S. Ct. 

2448 (2018). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de 

novo. Wright v. SEIU Loc. 503, 48 F.4th 1112, 1118 n.3 (9th Cir. 2022), cert. 

denied, 143 S. Ct. 749 (2023). We may affirm on any ground supported by the 

record. Ochoa v. Pub. Consulting Grp., Inc., 48 F.4th 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2022), 

cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 783 (2023). We affirm.1

Quezambra lacked standing to raise First Amendment claims for prospective 

relief to prevent future unauthorized deductions of union dues. Allegations of past 

injury alone, without continuing adverse effects, will not support standing. Wright, 

48 F.4th at 1120.

 The district court properly dismissed the civil rights claims alleged against 

the union. The union was not a state actor when it notified the state to deduct dues, 

even if there was forgery in the union membership process. Id. at 1121; Belgau v. 

Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021). 

The state officials, who were sued in their official capacity, are not persons 

1This appeal has been held in abeyance since February 10, 2022, pending 

issuance of the mandate in No. 20-36076, Zielinski v. SEIU, Local 503, or further 

order of this court. The stay is lifted.
3 

for purposes of § 1983. See Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71 

(1989). Therefore, Quezambra cannot state civil rights damage claims against the 

state officials. Id. 

To the extent she raised such a claim, Quezambra failed to state a Fourteenth 

Amendment procedural due process claim against the state officials and county 

because she did not allege that they intended to withhold unauthorized dues. 

Ochoa, 48 F.4th at 1110-11. An official’s negligent act that causes “unintended 

loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property” does not state a due process claim. Id. 

at 1110 (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the government’s “reliance on 

the union’s representations in the mistaken belief that they were accurate does not 

rise to the level of a Due Process Clause violation.” Id. at 1111. Moreover, 

Quezambra failed to allege facts to establish that a county policy or custom caused 

constitutional injuries. See Castro v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 

(9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability 

under Monell v. Dep’t. of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). In any event, “Janus 

imposes no affirmative duty on government entities to ensure that membership 

agreements and dues deductions are genuine.” Wright, 48 F.4th at 1125.

AFFIRMED.