N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT

B R IAN J. B OQUIST,
Pla

intiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. PETER C O UR TNEY, Ore g on Sta te Se nate Pre side nt, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity ; FLOYD PR O ZANSKI, Se nator, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s C ha i rm an

of the Se nate Spe c ia l C om

m itte e on C onduc t; JAM ES M ANNING, Se nator, in his offic ia l c a pa c i ty a s m e m be r of the Spe c ia l Se nate C onduc t C om

m itte e ; DEXTER JOHNSON, in his offic ia l c a pa c ity a s Le gisla tive C ounse l; JESSIC A KNIELING, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s inte rim Hum an R e s ourc e s Dire c tor; B RENDA KAY B AUM G AR T, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s c ontra c t inve stiga

tors to the Ore gon Sta

te Se nate ; DAR ON HILL, in his offic ia l Le g isla t ive Adm inistra

tion c a pa c ity ; M ELISSA J. HEALY, in he r offic ia l c a pa c ity a s c ontra c t inve stiga

tors to theOre gon Sta

t e Se nate , a nd a ll in the ir offic i a l c a

pa c itie s in the Le gisla

tive B ranc h of the State of No. 20-35080 D.C . No. 6:19-c v-01163-M C
M EM O R ANDUM * 

# F IL ED

APR 21 2022 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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 Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.Ore g on, De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ore gon M ic ha e l J. M c Shane , Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm i tte d Oc tobe r 6, 2021 ** Portla nd, Ore gon B e fore : W . FLETC HER , IKUTA, a nd B RESS, C irc uit Judge s . Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt B rian J. B oquist a

ppe a ls from

the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his c om

pla int a ga inst thede fe nda nts, who a

re Ore gon sta

t e se nators,
se nate a ide s , a

nd c ontra c tors hire d by

the sta te se nate . W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. 1 The distric t c ourt la c ke d jurisdic tion ove r B oquist’ s c la im s for de c la ratory
re lie f a ga inst de fe n da

nts for viola

tions of Se c t ion 26, Artic le I, B ill of Rights, of the O re gon C onstitution; Artic le IV, Se c tion 9 of the Ore gon C onstitution; a

nd othe r unspe c ifie d provisions of the Ore gon C onstitution. Suc h c la im s are ba rre d

* * W e pre viously

grante d a ppe lla nt’ s m otion to subm

it this c a se on the brie fs without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).
1 In a n opinion file d

c onc urre ntly

with this me m orandum , se e __ F.4th __ (9th C ir. 2022), we re ve rse the distric t c ourt’ s dismissa l of B oquist’ s First Am e ndm e nt re ta lia

tion c la im a ga inst de fe nda nts Pe te r C ourtne y , Floy d Proz anski, and Ja m e s M anning. 2by

the Ele ve nth Am e n dm e nt. 2 Se e Pe nnhurst State Sc h. & Hosp. v . Halde rman , 465 U.S. 89, 106 (1984). B oquist fa ile d to sta

te a c la im for a viola t ion of his rights unde

r the Due Proc e s s C la

use . Se e Haggard v . C

urry , 631 F.3d 931, 935 (9th C ir. 2010) (pe r
c uriam ). B oquist ha s not ide ntifie d any right to begive n

a dva nc e notic e of a

n inve stiga tion into his c onduc t, a

nd the re fore B o quist’ s c l a im tha t de fe nda nts

“ c o nduc t[e d] a

se c re t inve s tiga

t ion” of his c o nduc t doe s not pla u s ibly a l le ge a de priva tion of a libe rty inte re st. C

f. Unite d State

s v . W ashington , 431 U.S. 181, 189 (1977) (holding tha

t gra nd jury witne sse s ha

v e no due proc e ss right to be inform e d tha t the y are a ta rge t of the grand jury

inve stiga tion). B oquist’ s
a lle gation tha

t de fe nda nts a ske d the gove rnor to orde r the arre st of a b se nt se nators doe s not ra ise a

due proc e ss c la im

be c a use B oquist wa s not a

rre ste d a nd so wa s not de prive d of a

ny libe rty inte re st. Fina l ly , B oquist’ s a lle gation tha t he te nde re d a $3,500 c he c k

to pa y a fine for his a

bse nc e from

the sta te se nate doe s not sta

te a due proc e s s c la im

be c a use the c he c k wa s ne ve r c a she d a nd wa s inste a d re turne d to

2 To the e xte nt B oquist c la im s tha t provisions of the Ore gon C onstitution c onflic t with the U.S. C onstitution, ne ithe r his c o m pla int nor brie f on a

ppe a l distinc tly ide ntifie s the spe c ific provisions in c onflic t. The re fore , we do not a ddre s s the se c la im s. Se e Ent. Rsc h . Grp., Inc . v . Ge ne sis C r e ativ e Grp., Inc

. , 122 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th C ir. 1997) (“ W e re v i e w only issue s whic h a

re argue d spe c ific a lly

and distinc tly

in a pa rty ’ s ope ning brie f.” ).

3B oquist. Se e Hudson v . Palme r , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984) (holding tha t the re is no due proc e ss viola

tion “until a

nd unle ss [the sta

te ] . . . re fuse s to providea suita ble postdepriva

tion re m e dy ” ). B oquist a lso fa ile d

to sta te any substa ntive c la im s a ga inst non-le gisla tor de fe nda n ts De xte r Johnson, Je ssic a Knie ling, Da

ron Hill, B re nda

B a um ga rt, a nd M e l issa He a ly . Although B oquist a lle ge s tha t thosede fe nda

nts a dvise d

the le gisla tor de fe nda

nts to re que s t B oquist’ s a rre st or re stric t B oquist’ s a c c e s s to the Stat e C a pitol, the c om pla int fa ils to ra ise a

pla usible infe re nc e tha

t the se nonle gisla tor de fe nda

nts c ontrolle d or dire c te d the le gisla tors, or tha

t the le gisla

tors
we re m e re l y

a c onduit for thewill of thenon-le gisla tors. Se e Arnold v

. Int’l Bus. Mac h. C orp. , 637 F.2d 1350, 1357 (9th C ir. 1981). B e c a use the ha rm to B oquist
c an “ be tra c e d m ore dire c tly to a n inte rve ning a c tor” tha

n to thenon-le gisla

tor de fe nda n ts, B oquist fa ile d to sta

te any substa ntive c la i m

a g a inst thenon-le gisla

tor de fe nda n ts. 3 Stoot v . C

ity of Ev e re tt , 582 F.3d 910, 926 (9th C ir. 2009). Fina lly , the distric t c ourt did not a b use its disc re tion in deny ing B oquist le ave to a m e nd, be c a

use B oquist doe s not ide ntify what ne w fa c ts he would ple a d

3 B oquist’ s a

rgum e nt tha t he sta te d a c la i m a g a i nst thenon-le gisla

t or de fe nda n ts be c a use he sue d the m

in the ir offic ia l c a

pa c itie s is una

va iling. Even whe re a pla intiff na

m e s a de fe nda nt in he r offic ia l c a

p a c i ty , the pla intiff m

ust still e sta blish tha t the de fe nda

nt c a use d the a lle ge d

de priva tion of c onstitutiona

l rights. Se e H arpe r v . C

ity of Los Ange le

s , 533 F.3d 1010, 1026 (9th C ir. 2008).

4to c ure the de fic ie nc i e s in his c om pla int. S e e Gardne r v . Martino , 563 F.3d 981, 991 (9th C i r. 2009). AFFIRM E D IN PART .

5