Ronald Nordstrom v. Geoff Dean , 700 F. App'x 764 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 8 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD NORDSTROM, No. 16-55901
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07607-DMG-
FFM
v.
GEOFF DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 23, 2017**
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges
Ronald Nordstrom appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Second Amendment rights. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nordstrom’s Second Amendment
claim because “the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the
carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.” Peruta v.
County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 942 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55901