Christopher Darkins v. David Snowden , 649 F. App'x 492 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 02 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRISTOPHER OJI DARKINS, No. 13-56865
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-03831-JLS-
MAN
v.
DAVID SNOWDEN, in his official MEMORANDUM*
capacity as Beverly Hills Chief of Police,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 26, 2016**
Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Christopher Oji Darkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of
the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review de novo. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946,
956 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir.
2001) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Darkins’ action because Darkins
cannot state a claim directly under the United States Constitution. See Arpin v.
Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2001) (“This Court has
held that a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right does not
have a direct cause of action under the United States Constitution but must utilize
42 U.S.C. § 1983.”).
Moreover, to the extent that Darkins’ complaint can be liberally construed to
allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court properly dismissed
Darkins’ action because Darkins failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible
claim. See United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 217
(1984) (in-state residents “have no claim under the Privileges and Immunities
Clause” to challenge their state’s laws).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-56865