Linwood Edward Tracy, Jr. v. David A. Clark;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without**
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
EN/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LINWOOD EDWARD TRACY, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DAVID A. CLARK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15693
D.C. Nos. 3:09-cv-00046-BES-RAM
3:09-cv-00150-BES-RAM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009**
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Linwood Edward Tracy, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo,
FILED
DEC 14 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EN/Research 09-15693 2
Alvarado v. Table Mt. Rancheria, 509 F.3d 1008, 1015 (9th Cir. 2007), and may
affirm the district court’s judgment on any ground supported by the record, Ctr. for
Policy Analysis on Trade and Health (CPATH) v. Office of U.S. Trade, 540 F.3d
940, 944 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tracy’s action because he failed to
allege how any of the defendants’ actions in attempting to restrain him from the
unauthorized practice of law led to a constitutional violation. See Arnold v.
International Business Machines, 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining
that a section 1983 plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative
act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s federal rights).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --