Case Name: Jesus CORTEZ; Enrique Gonzalez; Alfredo Esquivez; Luis Perez; Abelino Espinoza; Manuel Duenas; Eduardo Lascano; Ramon Perez; Jose Garcia; Socorro Zendejas; Pablo Duenas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; Alameda County Sheriffs Department; Gregory J. Ahern, Sheriff; Dean N. Stavert; Hal Bancroft; John Kriege; Gary Parkham; Mike Bush; Dale Silva, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-24
Citations: 580 F. App'x 565
Docket Number: No. 12-16669
Parties: Jesus CORTEZ; Enrique Gonzalez; Alfredo Esquivez; Luis Perez; Abelino Espinoza; Manuel Duenas; Eduardo Lascano; Ramon Perez; Jose Garcia; Socorro Zendejas; Pablo Duenas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; Alameda County Sheriffs Department; Gregory J. Ahern, Sheriff; Dean N. Stavert; Hal Bancroft; John Kriege; Gary Parkham; Mike Bush; Dale Silva, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 580
Pages: 565–565

Head Matter:
Jesus CORTEZ; Enrique Gonzalez; Alfredo Esquivez; Luis Perez; Abelino Espinoza; Manuel Duenas; Eduardo Lascano; Ramon Perez; Jose Garcia; Socorro Zendejas; Pablo Duenas, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; Alameda County Sheriffs Department; Gregory J. Ahern, Sheriff; Dean N. Stavert; Hal Bancroft; John Kriege; Gary Parkham; Mike Bush; Dale Silva, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16669.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted June 13, 2014.
Filed June 24, 2014.
Daniel Lewis Mitchell, Esquire, Law Office of Daniel L. Mitchell, Alameda, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Robert D. Reiter, Deputy County Counsel, Oakland, CA, James Farinaro, Law Office of James Farinaro, San Leandro, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Plaintiffs-Appellants are Hispanic homeowners in Hayward, California, who allege that the County of Alameda has selectively enforced a zoning ordinance against them, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They assert that the county defendants are selectively enforcing the ordinance against them. They have not, however, alleged that there are any similarly situated non-Hispanic homeowners who are violating the ordinance but are not being cited. They therefore cannot make out a selective enforcement claim against the county defendants. See Freeman v. City of Santa Ana, 68 F.3d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir.1995). California state law concerning the effect of deed restrictions is not relevant to any federal claim.
Plaintiffs, also allege violations of § 1983 by individual members of the homeowners association but allege no facts to support a conspiracy or any other theory of state action on the part of the homeowner association defendants. See Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th Cir.2002) (requiring conspiracy or joint action with a state actor to hold liable a private individual under § 1983).
Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed the complaint as failing to adequately allege any federal claim upon which relief could be granted.
Affirmed.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.