Wade Webb v. County of Pima ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 21 2019
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WADE TRAVIS WEBB,                               No. 18-16659
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00268-FRZ
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    COUNTY OF PIMA; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 19, 2019**
    Before:      FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    Wade Travis Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection
    claims. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
    § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
    *
    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).
    (order). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendants
    Dupnik, Nanos, Napier, and LaWall in their individual capacities because Webb
    failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any of these defendants personally
    participated in the alleged deprivations. See Starr v. Baca, 
    652 F.3d 1202
    , 1207-08
    (9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).
    The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendants
    Pima County, and Dupnik, Nanos, Napier, and LaWall in their official capacities,
    because Webb failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a policy or custom of
    Pima County caused his alleged injury. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 
    833 F.3d 1060
    , 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish
    municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 
    436 U.S. 658
    (1978)).
    The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendant
    Castillo, the investigating officer, because Webb failed to allege facts sufficient to
    show he was not provided with the process he was due, or that Castillo acted with
    “an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his membership in a
    protected class.” Serrano v. Francis, 
    345 F.3d 1071
    , 1082 (9th Cir. 2003)
    2                                    18-16659
    (explaining elements of an equal protection claim); see also Ingraham v. Wright,
    
    430 U.S. 651
    , 672 (1977) (explaining the elements of a due process claim).
    We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s denial of Webb’s motion
    for relief from a final judgment because Webb failed to file a separate or amended
    notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                   18-16659