Brian Cortland v. Jeffrey Scott Myers;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
BRIAN CORTLAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JEFFREY SCOTT MYERS; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35973
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05489-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 13, 2012**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Brian Cortland appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) alleging that defendants failed to
comply with Washington’s Public Records Act. We have jurisdiction under 28
FILED
NOV 20 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-35973 2
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state
a claim. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cortland’s claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 because Cortland failed to allege that defendants deprived him of a federal
right. See Gibson v. United States, 781 F.2d 1334, 1338 (9th Cir. 1986) (“To make
out a cause of action under section 1983, plaintiffs must plead that (1) the
defendants acting under color of state law (2) deprived plaintiffs of rights secured
by the Constitution or federal statutes.”).
The district court properly dismissed Cortland’s claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985(3) because Cortland failed to allege that racial or other class-based
discriminatory animus motivated the alleged conspiracy to deprive him of his
rights. See Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 267-68
(1993) (to state a claim under § 1985(3), “a plaintiff must show, inter alia, . . . that
‘some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus
[lay] behind the conspirators’ action’” (alteration in original; citation omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cortland’s motion
for reconsideration because Cortland did not allege any stand-alone state law
claims in his second amended complaint. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty.,

-- 2 of 3 --

11-35973 3
Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing for an abuse
of discretion and setting forth grounds for reconsideration).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --