Martin v. International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 10, 2026
• Docket: 25-829
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 10 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL B. MARTIN, No. 25-829 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-04859-RFL v. MEMORANDUM* INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES & PILOTS; MATSON NAVIGATION COMPANY, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Rita F. Lin, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 10, 2026** San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, NGUYEN, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Martin appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) against the International Organization of Masters, Mates

* 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). & Pilots (“the Union”) and Matson Navigation Company, Inc., for failure to state a

claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss. D’Augusta v. Am.

Petroleum Inst., 117 F.4th 1094, 1100 (9th Cir. 2024) (citing Palm v. L.A. Dep’t of

Water & Power, 889 F.3d 1081, 1085 (9th Cir. 2018)). “When conducting this

review, we accept all nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint as true.”

Id.

“To state a claim for conspiracy” under § 1985(3), “a plaintiff must show,

inter alia, (1) that some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously

discriminatory animus lay behind the conspirators’ action, and (2) that the

conspiracy aimed at interfering with rights that are protected against private, as well

as official, encroachment.” Butler v. Elle, 281 F.3d 1014, 1028 (9th Cir. 2002) (per

curiam) (citation modified). A “class” is cognizable under § 1985(3) “only when

the class in question can show that there has been a governmental determination that

its members require and warrant special federal assistance in protecting their civil

rights.” Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal

quotation marks omitted) (quoting Schultz v. Sundberg, 759 F.2d 714, 718 (9th Cir.

1985)). That means that the class must have received either (a) a designation by the

courts that the class is “a suspect or quasi-suspect classification requiring more

2 25-829 exacting scrutiny” or (b) federal legislation indicating that the class requires “special

protection.” Id. (quoting Schultz, 759 F.2d at 718).

Martin has failed to establish the existence of any right protected against

private encroachment. Even assuming a fundamental constitutional right to refuse

vaccination, Martin points to no authority—and we have found none—suggesting

that such a right is protected against both private and official encroachment. That

failure is fatal to Martin’s claim. See Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic,

506 U.S. 263, 277–78 (1993).

AFFIRMED.

3 25-829