Robert Wooten v. State of California;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT WOOTEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-15560
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01311-LKK-
JFM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2010**
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Robert Wooten appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants violated his First and
FILED
MAR 30 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

tk/Research 09-15560 2
Tenth Amendment rights by virtue of a California Supreme Court decision
legalizing same-sex marriage in California. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo an order granting a motion to dismiss. Sacks v. Office
of Foreign Assets Control, 466 F.3d 764, 770 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court.
We do not consider Wooten’s arguments raised for the first time on appeal.
See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007).
Wooten’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --