Roland Cooke v. the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROLAND COOKE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
THE CORPORATION OF THE
PRESIDENT OF THE CHURCH OF
JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY
SAINTS; THE CORPORATION OF THE
PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH
OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER DAY
SAINTS,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-16960
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-08080-MHM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Mary H. Murguia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 23, 2010**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Roland Cooke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
FILED
SEP 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16960 2
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging religious discrimination claims and due
process violations against two private companies who manage the legal affairs of
the Mormon Church. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, Kennedy v. S. Cal. Edison, Co., 268 F.3d 763, 767 (9th Cir. 2001), and we
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cooke’s action because defendants are
not state actors and Cooke failed to plead sufficient facts to show that they
colluded with state actors in the alleged constitutional violations. See Rendell-
Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837-38 and n. 6 (1982) (only state actors or private
parties acting in concert with state actors are subject to a section 1983 suit); see
also Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295
(2001) (private behavior is attributable to the state only if there is a close nexus
between the state and the challenged action); Ivey v. Bd. of Regents, 673 F.2d 266,
268 (9th Cir. 1982) (“vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in
civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --