Westin v. City of Calabasas

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2025
• Docket: 23-3729
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRUCE WESTIN, No. 23-3729 D.C. No. 2:22-cv-03788-VBF-DFM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CITY OF CALABASAS; CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT; CALIFORNIA COURT OF APPEALS,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 17, 2025**

Before: CANBY, R. NELSON, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Bruce Westin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.

* 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). Seismic Reservoir 2020, Inc. v. Paulsson, 785 F.3d 330, 333 (9th Cir. 2015)

(dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6)); Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d

1148, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine). We

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Westin’s claims against the City of

Calabasas because Westin failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible Fifth

Amendment claim or show that he suffered a constitutional violation as a result of

an official policy or custom. See Schneider v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 151 F.3d 1194,

1198 (9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth requirements for stating a claim under the

Takings Clause); see also Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, 594 U.S. 139, 160

(2021) (observing that when items are seized in accordance with a valid exercise of

police power, “the government owes a landowner no compensation for requiring

him to abate a nuisance on his property, because he never had a right to engage in

the nuisance in the first place”); Lockett v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741

(9th Cir. 2020) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under

Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)).

The district court properly dismissed Westin’s claims against the California

Superior Court and California Court of Appeal because Westin’s claims were a “de

facto appeal” of prior state court judgments or were “inextricably intertwined” with

those judgments. See Noel, 341 F.3d at 1163–65 (discussing proper application of

2 23-3729 the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); see also Cooper v. Ramos, 704 F.3d 772, 782 (9th

Cir. 2012) (explaining that claims are “inextricably intertwined” with state court

decisions where federal adjudication “would impermissibly undercut the state

ruling on the same issues” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 23-3729