Court Opinion

ID: 9407907
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-10 19:00:41.009011+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:40.771025
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 10 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARTIN MALBERG,                                 No.    22-16703

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 5:22-cv-01788-BLF

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT CASHEN, Lawyer; CHRISTINE
GUERRA, Lawyer; ALLISON DUNDAS,
Lawyer,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

TEMO GONZALEZ, Police Officer,

                Defendant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                  Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
      Martin Malberg appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment

rights by obtaining a restraining order against him in state court. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Malberg’s action because Malberg

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were acting under color of

state law when they allegedly violated his First Amendment rights. See West v.

Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . .

show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of

state law.”); Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1988)

(“Invoking state legal procedures does not constitute ‘joint participation’ or

‘conspiracy’ with state officials sufficient to satisfy section 1983’s state action

requirement.”); see also Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (18

U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 provide no basis for civil liability).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-16703