Wolfe v. Deeb

Ninth Circuit

Wolfe v. Deeb

162 F. App'x 782

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 13, 2006

DocketNo. 05-15519

StatusPublished

This text of 162 F. App'x 782 (Wolfe v. Deeb) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wolfe v. Deeb, 162 F. App'x 782 (9th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Burton H. Wolfe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action against private individuals and city officials, seeking damages for exposure to loud music and noise generated by his neighbor, the Bambuddha Lounge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wolfe’s First Amendment claim because, contrary to Wolfe’s contention, the constitution does not protect a person’s interest in freedom from forced listening. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 717 n. 24, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (noting that the “right [to be let alone] is more accurately characterized as an interest that state can choose to protect in certain situations”) (emphasis added).

The district court properly dismissed Wolfe’s claim that defendants violated due process by infringing on his liberty or property rights because Wolfe does not have a constitutional right to be free from noise. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (a due process claim is triggered only upon a deprivation of life, liberty or property); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989) (due process clause does not require the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens against invasion by private actors).

The district court properly dismissed Wolfe’s equal protection claim because he failed to allege discrimination against members of a suspect class, or implication of a fundamental constitutional right. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-17, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982).

Wolfe’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Burton H. Wolfe appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action against private individuals and city officials, seeking damages for exposure to loud music and noise generated by his neighbor, the Bambuddha Lounge. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 737 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wolfe’s First Amendment claim because, contrary to Wolfe’s contention, the constitution does not protect a person’s interest in freedom from forced listening. See Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 717 n. 24, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (noting that the “right [to be let alone] is more accurately characterized as an interest that state can choose to protect in certain situations”) (emphasis added).

The district court properly dismissed Wolfe’s claim that defendants violated due process by infringing on his liberty or property rights because Wolfe does not have a constitutional right to be free from noise. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (a due process claim is triggered only upon a deprivation of life, liberty or property); DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 195, 109 S.Ct. 998, 103 L.Ed.2d 249 (1989) (due process clause does not require the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of citizens against invasion by private actors).

The district court properly dismissed Wolfe’s equal protection claim because he failed to allege discrimination against members of a suspect class, or implication of a fundamental constitutional right. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216-17, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982).

Wolfe’s remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 F. App'x 782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wolfe-v-deeb-ca9-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack