N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
JUSTIN RINGGOLD-LOC KHAR T a nd NINA R INGGOLD, Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts,
v. C OUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 11-56973 D.C . No. 2:11-c v-01725-R -PLA
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia M anue l L. R e a l , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 2, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : PREGER SON, B E R ZON, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc u it Judge s. 1. The First Am e nde d C om pla int fa i ls to sta

te a c la im upon whic h re lie f c an be grante d. Se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). As to c o unt one , the 42 U.S.C . § 1983
a lle gations do not a

lle ge suffic i e nt fa c ts to ple a d a pla usible c la im

of 

# FIL ED

JAN 10 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).disc rim inatory a p plic ation of C a lifornia ’ s ve xatious litiga nt sta tute . Se e Ashc roft v
. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Nothing in the First Am e nde d C om

pla int a lle ge s fa c t s pointing to purpose ful vie wpoint, ra c ia l, or disa b ility disc rim ination, a s oppose d to there gula

r ope ration of thesta

te ve xatious litiga

nt sta tute . Appe lla

nts have thus fa i le d to a lle g e fa c ts showing tha t the disc rim inatory

im pa c t of whic h the y c om pla in is fa irly

tra c e a ble to a disc rim inatory

purpose . Se e W

a s hington v
. Dav is , 426 U.S. 229, 242 (1976). Nor ha v e a ppe lla nts a lle ge d

suffic i e nt fa c ts to ple a d a due -proc e ss viola

tion or a ta kings c la im arising out of the ve xatious litiga

nt sta tute or Se nate B ill X2 11’ s re troa c tivity provision. Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Appe l la nts c om pla in of a n unla wful judic ia l pa

y sc he m e , but ha

ve not ple d a

ny fa c t s indic ating “ a

risk of a c tua l bia s or pre

judgm e nt [suc h] tha

t the pra c tic e m

ust be forbidde n if the gua

rante e of due proc e ss is to be a de quate ly

im ple m e nte d.” C ape rton v . A.T. Masse

y C oal C o., Inc
. , 556 U.S. 868, 884 (2009) (quoting W ithrow v . Lark in , 421 U.S. 35, 47 (1975)). 2. It wa s a lso prope r to dismiss c ount two of the First Am e nde d

C o m pla int. Appe l la nts fa ile d to sta

te a c la im tha t e ithe r the a

pplic at ion of thesta

te ve xatious litiga nt sta t ute or the se le c tive a

ppointm e nt of truste e s in proba te m atte rs involve d
a c onspira c y

to purpose ly viola

te c ivil rights, 42 U.S.C . § 1985(3), a nd ha ve not

2a lle ge d fa c t s showing tha t pe rsons of c o lor a

re be ing de prive d of a

right or privile ge tha

t is othe rwise e x te n de d to whitec i tiz e n s. 42 U.S.C . § 1982. 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the c la i m s a ga inst theC o unty of Los Ange le s a

nd C o unty

C ounse l Andre a

Ordin, be c a

use Appe lla

nts fa ile d to ple a d fa c t s de m onstra

ting tha t the se C ounty

a c tors a re lia b le for the a c tions of C a l ifornia sta te c o urt judge s. S

e e Franc e s c hi v . Sc hw artz , 57 F.3d 828, 831 (9th C ir. 1995). 4. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the offic ia l-c a

pa c ity c la im s a ga inst sta te Appe lle e s Gove rnor Je rry B rown a nd Attorne y

Ge ne ra l Kam a la

Ha rris for
m one ta ry dam a ge s. Se e Flint v . De nnison , 488 F.3d 816, 824–25 (9th C ir. 2007). Appe l la nts’ argum e nt tha

t the sta te Appe lle e s wa ive d the sove re ign-im m unity de fe nse by

filing a re s ponsiveple a ding se ve ra l da y s la te is una va iling. B e c a

use the sta te Appe lle e s ra i se d the sove re ign-im m unity de fe nse in the ir first re sponsive ple a ding, the y

suffic ie ntly

invoke d this de fe nse . Se e Tritc hle r v . C o unty of Lak e , 358 F.3d 1150 (9th C ir. 2004). 5. B e c a use the fe de ra l c la im s we re prope rly dism isse d at a

n e a rly sta ge of the p roc e e dings, in this c a se it would be an a b use of disc re tion for thedistric t c ourt to e x e rc ise jurisdic tion ove r the re m a ining sta te -lawc l a im s. 28 U.S.C
. § 1367(c )(3); se e Ac ri v . Varian Assoc s. , Inc
. , 114 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba nc ). 36. The m otion for a te m pora ry re stra ining orde r wa s prope rly de nie d, be c a use Appe lla

nts ha ve not ra ise d se rious que s tions going to the m e rits of the ir
c la im s. Se e Allianc e for the W ild Roc k i e s v . C ottre ll , 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th C ir. 2011). The m otions for re c onside ration a nd re lie f from

judgm e nt we re prope rly de nie d be c a u s e Appe lla

nts pre s e nte d no ne wly

disc ove re d

e vide nc e , a

nd the re wa s no c le ar le ga l e rror, no inte rve ning c ha nge in la w, nor a ny othe r re a son justify ing re lie f. Se e Unite d N at’l Ins. C

o . v . Spe c trum W

orldw ide , Inc
. , 555 F.3d 772, 780 (9th C ir. 2009). There que s t for le ave to a m e nd the First Am e nde d C om pla int wa s prope rly

de nie d be c a

use the m otions a

nd C om pla int c onfirm

tha t, in this insta

nc e , furthe r am e ndm e nt would befutile
. Se e C o ok , Pe r k iss and Lie he

, Inc
. v . N . C al. C olle c t ion Se rv . Inc
. , 911 F.2d 242, 247 (9th C ir. 1990). 7. Nothing in this m

e m orandum

disposition should be

c onstrue d a s a ffe c ting the c om pa nion a ppe a l from

this c a se , No. 11-57231, which is still pe n ding be fore this c ourt. AFFIRM ED.

4