Wade Travis Webb v. County of Pima;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WADE TRAVIS WEBB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF PIMA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16659
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00268-FRZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 19, 2019**
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Wade Travis Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and equal protection
claims. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
* 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).
FILED
FEB 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-16659
(order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendants
Dupnik, Nanos, Napier, and LaWall in their individual capacities because Webb
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any of these defendants personally
participated in the alleged deprivations. See Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08
(9th Cir. 2011) (elements for supervisory liability under § 1983).
The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendants
Pima County, and Dupnik, Nanos, Napier, and LaWall in their official capacities,
because Webb failed to allege facts sufficient to show that a policy or custom of
Pima County caused his alleged injury. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833
F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish
municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658
(1978)).
The district court properly dismissed Webb’s claims against defendant
Castillo, the investigating officer, because Webb failed to allege facts sufficient to
show he was not provided with the process he was due, or that Castillo acted with
“an intent or purpose to discriminate against him based upon his membership in a
protected class.” Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003)

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-16659
(explaining elements of an equal protection claim); see also Ingraham v. Wright,
430 U.S. 651, 672 (1977) (explaining the elements of a due process claim).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s denial of Webb’s motion
for relief from a final judgment because Webb failed to file a separate or amended
notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --