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

Y GAR M ONG, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C OUNTY OF LYON; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 18-17282 D.C . No. 3:17-c v-00701-R C J-C B C M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da R obe rt C live Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 26, 2020 ** La s Ve ga s , Ne v a d a B e fore : W . FLETC HER , B YB EE, a nd WATFORD , C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff Gre gory

Ga rm ong file d this a c t ion in distric t c ourt, c ha lle nging de fe nda n t Ly on C ounty ’ s a

pprova l of a

spe c i a l use pe rm it for c onstruc tion of a c e llula r fa c ility on la nd a lso use d by

the Sm i th Va l le y

Fire Prote c tion Distric t



# FIL ED MAR 30 2020 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.

* * The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).(“ SVFPD” ). The distric t c ourt dismi sse d Ga rm ong’ s c om

pla int due to his fa ilure to e s ta b lish Artic l e III sta

nding to bring his c la im s but gra nte d him le ave to a

m e nd. Garm o ng file d a first a

m e n d e d c om

pla int, a nd the distric t c ourt a ga in dismisse d for la c k of Artic le III sta

n ding. De fe nda

nts SVFPD a

nd its B oa

rd of Dire c tors Pre side nt M ic ha e l B oudre a u (toge the r the “ fe e de fe nda nts” ) subse que n tly

m ove d for a ttorne y ’ s fe e s, whic h the distric t c ourt gra nte d in pa rt. Garm ong a

rgue s tha t the d istric t c o urt’ s dism issa l wa s e rror, and tha t in a ny e ve nt the distric t c ourt a buse d its disc re tion in a

warding a ttorne y ’ s fe e s. W e hav e jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1. W e re vie wde novo thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l of Ga rm ong’ s c om pla i nt. Se eLak

e W ash. Sc h. Dist. N

o. 414 v . Offic eof Supe rinte nde nt of Pub. Instruc tion , 634 F.3d 1065, 1067 (9th C ir. 2011). W hile the distric t c ourt dism isse d Ga

rm ong’ s c om

pla int for la c k of Artic le III sta nding, we m ay

a ffirm on any ba s is fa irly

supporte d

by the re c ord. Id . W e c o nc lude tha t dism issa l wa s a ppropria te . Garm ong a lle ge d viola

tions of dueproc e ss (both substa ntive and proc e dura l) and e qua l prote c tion via 42 U.S.C . § 1983, a s we ll a s sta t e -lawc la im s. Ga

rm ong’ s substa ntive due proc e ss c la im

fa ils be c a

use he ha s not a lle ge d a

n injury in fa c t. Se e Be rnhardt v . C

ounty of Los Ange le

s , 279 F.3d 862, 868–69 (9th C ir. 2002)
2(artic ulating theArtic le III sta nding re quire m e nts). One of his a lle ge d injurie s— a c onstitutiona

lly prote c te d prope rty

inte re st in the de nia l of the pe rm it— is not pa rtic u la riz e d . The othe rs—

future ha rm to his lifeand libe rty

and “ stre ss a

nd anxie ty ”

—

re st on a “ highly atte nuate d c ha in of possibilitie s ,” inc luding tha t fire fighting a

n d e m e rge nc y

m e dic a l se rvic e s would beim pa ire d, a nd tha t Ga rm ong would e ve r ne e d the m . C lappe r v . Amne

sty Int’l USA , 568 U.S. 398, 410 (2013). Eve n a ssum ing tha

t Ga rm ong ha s Artic le III sta

nding to bring his proc e dura l due proc e s s c a

use of a c t ion, he fa ile d to sta te a c la i m be c a u se his a m e n de d c om

pla int doe s not pla

u sibly a lle ge tha

t Ly on C ounty ’ s notic e -and-he aring proc e dure s we re c onstitutiona

lly ina de quate . S

e e Foss v . N

at’l Marine

Fishe rie s Se rv . , 161 F.3d 584, 588 (9th C ir. 1998). Aga in, e ve n a ssum ing Artic le III sta nding, Ga rm ong’ s e qua l prote c tion c la im , pre m ise d

on the ide a

tha t he wa s single d out by Ly on C ounty , like wise fa i ls be c a use he did not a lle ge tha

t he wa s tre ate d diffe re ntly from othe rs who we re sim ila rly situa te d
. S e e N . Pac ific a LLC v . C

ity of Pac ific a , 526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th C ir. 2008) (de sc ribing the“ c l a ss of one ” e qua l prote c tion the ory and its a ssoc iate d e le m e nts). Ga

rm ong’ s c la im a l le ging a

sc he m e to de ny his c ivil rights the re fore fa ils for la c k of a

ny unde rly ing c onstitutiona

l viola t ions. As there are no fe d e ra l c la im s re m a i ning, we infe r that the distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l inc lude d a re fusa l to 3e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r Garm o n g’ s sta te -law c la im s. Se e C arne gie -Me llon Univ
. v . C

ohill , 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988) (“ [W ] h e n the fe de ra l-la w c la i m s ha

ve droppe d out of thela

wsuit in its e arly

sta ge s a n d only sta te -law c la im s re m a in, the fe de ra l c ourt should de c line the e xe rc ise of jurisdic tion by dism issing the c a se without pre

judic e .” (footnote om itte d)). 2. Ga rm ong offe rs a

sm a tte ring of a

rgum e n ts supporting his c onte ntion tha t the d istric t c o urt’ s a

ward of attorne y ’ s fe e s wa s e rror. None is pe rsua sive . W e re vie w for a

buse of disc re t ion a

n a ward of attorne y ’ s fe e s unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1988. Se e Braunste in v . Ariz. De p’t of Transp. , 683 F.3d 1177, 1184 (9th C ir. 2012). Se c tion 1988 perm its a

c ourt to a

ward the “ pre va iling pa

rty ” in a § 1983 c a se re a s ona ble attorne y ’ s fe e s a s pa

rt of c osts. 42 U.S.C . § 1988(b). B ut the sta tute ope ra t e s a sym

m e tric a lly , a

nd pre va iling de fe nda

nts m ay only re c e ive attorne y ’ s fe e s whe n “ the pla intiff’ s c ivil rights c la im is frivolous, unre a sona

b le , or groundle ss, or [if] the pla intiff c ontinue d to litiga te a fte r it c le a

rly be c am e so.” Thomas v . C

ity of Tac oma , 410 F.3d 644, 647 (9th C ir. 2005) (inte rna l quota tion
m arks om itte d). C ontra ry to Ga rm ong’ s a sse rtion, thedistric t c ourt ha d jurisdic tion to a ward a ttorne y ’ s fe e s unde r this provision, e ve n though it dism

isse d his c a se for la c k of subje c t-m a tte r jurisdic tion. Se e C RST Van Ex

p e dite d, Inc
. v . EEOC, 136 S. C t. 41642, 1646, 1652 (2016) (“It would m ake little se nse if C ongre ss’ polic y of spa ring de fe nda n ts from the c osts of

friv olous litiga

t ion de pe nde d on the distinc tion be twe e n m e rits-ba se d a

nd non-m e rits-ba se d frivolity .” (inte rna l quota t ion m arks and c ita tion omitte d )); se e also Alask a Right to Life

Politic al Ac tion C

omm. v . Fe ldman , 504 F.3d 840, 852 (9th C ir. 2007) (noting tha t “ a c ourt m ay

award a ttorne y [’ s] fe e s a

n d c osts e ve n a fte r dism issing for la c k of jurisdic tion” ). M ore o ve r, the fe e de fe nda nts c an be pre va iling pa

rtie s unde r § 1988, e v e n

if the ir favora ble judgm e nt wa s not ba s e d on the m e rits. Se e C RST , 136 S. C t. at 1651; Amphastar Pharm. Inc . v . Av e ntis Pharma SA , 856 F.3d 696, 710 (9th C ir. 2017). W e furthe r hold tha

t the distric t c ourt wa s not pre c lude d from de c i ding tha

t Garm o ng’ s c la i m s we re frivolous e ve n though it had e a rlie r give n him

le ave to am e nd his initia

l c om pla int. C f. Pione e r Lumbe r Tre ating, Inc
. v . C ox , 5 F.3d 539, a t *4 (9th C ir. 1993) (unpublishe d ta ble de c ision) (upholding a n im position of sa nc tions unde r Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 11 whe re the distric t c o urt ultim a te ly c onc lude d tha

t the pla intiffs’ c om

p la int wa s frivolous but had e arlie r gran te d le ave to a

m e nd). W e a gre e with thedistric t c ourt tha t Ga rm o n g’ s c la im s a

re frivolous. “A c a se m ay be de e m e d frivolous only whe n the re sult is obvious or the argum e nts of e rror are wholly without m e rit.” K aram v . C ity of Burbank

, 352 F.3d 1188, 1195
5(9th C ir. 2003) (inte rna l quota tion m arks a

nd e l lipsis om

itte d). He re , the re s ult wa s just tha

t. Ga rm ong e i the r a lle ge d only ge ne ra l iz e d, spe c u lat ive injurie s, or, e ve n a s sum ing he ha d

Artic le III sta

nding, fa ile d to a

rtic ulate or pla

u sibly a lle ge ne c e ssa ry e le m e n t s of his c onstitutiona l c l a im s. Garm ong a lso lists a

num be r of othe r m ista

ke s he c onte nds the distric t c ourt m a de in issuing its fe e orde r. B ut the goa l of fe e -shifting “ is to do rough justic e , not to a c hie ve a

uditing pe rfe c tion.” Fox

v . Vic e , 563 U.S. 826, 838 (2011). W hile we e nsure tha

t the distric t c ourt provide d “ som e indic ation or e xpla n ation of how [it] a rrive d at the am ount of fe e s a

warde d,” Be nton v . Or. Stude nt Assistanc e C omm’n , 421 F.3d 901, 904 (9th C ir. 2005) (a lte ra tion in origina l), we none the le ss give “ substa

ntia l de fe re n c e ” to the distric t c ourt’ s de te rm inat ions, Fox , 563 U.S. a t 838. The distric t c ourt’ s re duc tion of thefe e de fe n d ants’ re que ste d hours wa s re a s one d, a

nd the re c o rd shows tha

t Ga rm ong’ s a lle gat ions re ga

rding the a de qua c y of the fe e m otion a

nd billing entrie s a

re ba se le ss. AFFIRM E D. C osts a

re taxe d a ga inst Ga

rm ong. S e e F E D . R . A P P . P. 39(a )(2).

6