Craig Douglas Allen v. City of Citrus Heights Police Department; Medialab; Matt Jacobs; Bert Reed

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG DOUGLAS ALLEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS POLICE
DEPARTMENT; MEDIALAB; MATT
JACOBS; BERT REED,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15030
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01853-JAM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Craig Douglas Allen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in connection with the search of his home.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal
* 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
JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 4 --

2 22-15030
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark
Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Allen’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
because Allen failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim against any
defendant. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to state a claim for
relief that is plausible on its face, a plaintiff must allege facts that “allow[ ] the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the
misconduct alleged”); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a claim
under § 1983, a plaintiff must . . . show that the alleged deprivation was committed
by a person acting under color of state law.”); 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. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658
(1978)); Leer v. Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 633 (9th Cir. 1988) (under § 1983, the
focus is “on the duties and responsibilities of each individual defendant whose acts
or omissions are alleged to have caused a constitutional deprivation”).
The district court properly dismissed Allen’s claims under federal and state
criminal laws because none of these statutes provides for a private right of action.
See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S.
164, 190 (1994) (criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a private right of

-- 2 of 4 --

3 22-15030
action); Allen v. Gold Country Casino, 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th Cir. 2006) (no
private right of action under 18 U.S.C. § 241).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Allen’s state law claims. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1367(c)(3); San Pedro Hotel Co., Inc., v. City of Los Angeles, 159 F.3d 470, 478
(9th Cir. 1998) (setting forth standard of review); Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 826
(9th Cir. 2001) (court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
related state law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original
jurisdiction).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying as moot Allen’s
discovery motion. See Mabe v. San Bernardino Cnty., 237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review); Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342
F.3d 1080, 1093 (9th Cir. 2003) (discovery rulings should only be disturbed on
clear showing of actual and substantial prejudice).
We reject as unpersuasive Allen’s contention that the involvement of a
magistrate judge without his consent was improper as the magistrate judge did not
enter dispositive orders, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A)–(C), and we reject as
unsupported by the record Allen’s contention that the district judge was biased
against him.
All pending motions and requests are denied.

-- 3 of 4 --

4 22-15030
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --