NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 e xcept 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 APPEALS2

Maria Quezambra appeals from the district court’s d ismiss al 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 2 8 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) . W e may affirm on any ground supported by the
record. Ochoa v. Pub

. Consulting Grp

. , Inc. , 48 F.4th 1102, 110 6 (9th Cir. 20 2 2),
cert. denied , 143 S. Ct. 783 (2023). We affirm. 1 Quezambra lacked standing to raise First Amendment cl aims 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 ag ainst
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, 94 6

- 4 9 (9th Cir. 2020), cert. denied , 141 S. Ct. 2795 (2021).
The stat e officials, who were sued in their official capacity, are not persons

1 This 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 the y intended to withhold unauthorized dues.
Ochoa , 48 F.4th at 1110

- 11. A n 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 representat ions 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 Ca stro 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 gover nment entities to ensure that membership agreements and dues deductions are genuine. ” W right , 48 F.4th at 1125.
AFFIRMED.