Case Name: Caroline DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATORS OF LOS ANGELES; Roger Johnson; Lorraine Bush, Defendants-Appellees, and Gil Garcetti, District Attorney of Los Angeles County; Los Angeles Unified School District, Board of Education; Barbara Bourdeaux; Victoria Castro; Jeff Horton; Valerie Fields; David Tokofsky; Julie Korenstein; George Kiriyama; Jefferson Crain; Lupe Reyes; James Figueroa; Dolores Diazcarrey, Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-22
Citations: 4 F. App'x 480
Docket Number: No. 99-56271; D.C. No. CV-97-08111-TJH
Parties: Caroline DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATORS OF LOS ANGELES; Roger Johnson; Lorraine Bush, Defendants-Appellees, and Gil Garcetti, District Attorney of Los Angeles County; Los Angeles Unified School District, Board of Education; Barbara Bourdeaux; Victoria Castro; Jeff Horton; Valerie Fields; David Tokofsky; Julie Korenstein; George Kiriyama; Jefferson Crain; Lupe Reyes; James Figueroa; Dolores Diazcarrey, Defendants.
Judges: Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 4
Pages: 480–481

Head Matter:
Caroline DANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ASSOCIATED ADMINISTRATORS OF LOS ANGELES; Roger Johnson; Lorraine Bush, Defendants-Appellees, and Gil Garcetti, District Attorney of Los Angeles County; Los Angeles Unified School District, Board of Education; Barbara Bourdeaux; Victoria Castro; Jeff Horton; Valerie Fields; David Tokofsky; Julie Korenstein; George Kiriyama; Jefferson Crain; Lupe Reyes; James Figueroa; Dolores Diazcarrey, Defendants.
No. 99-56271.
D.C. No. CV-97-08111-TJH.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 12, 2001.
Decided Feb. 22, 2001.
Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
. The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Caroline Daniels appeals the district court's summary judgment for defendants in her action alleging that defendants conspired to violate her constitutional rights and breached a duty of fair representation after she purportedly threatened to kill her supervisor at the Los Angeles Unified School District. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment, see Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 852 (9th Cir.1998), and we affirm.
Because Daniels failed to create a triable issue that the union acted arbitrarily, in bad faith, or in a discriminatory manner, the district court properly granted summary judgment on Daniels' breach of duty of fair representation claim. See Moore v. Bechtel Power Corp., 840 F.2d 634, 636-37 (9th Cir.1988).
Furthermore, Daniels has waived any issues regarding her 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986 and 1988 claims by failing to develop those issues in her opening brief. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1993).
AFFIRMED.
. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.