Martin Malberg v. ROBERT CASHEN, Lawyer; CHRISTINE GUERRA, Lawyer; ALLISON DUNDAS, Lawyer

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN MALBERG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ROBERT CASHEN, Lawyer; CHRISTINE
GUERRA, Lawyer; ALLISON DUNDAS,
Lawyer,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
TEMO GONZALEZ, Police Officer,
Defendant.
No. 22-16703
D.C. No. 5:22-cv-01788-BLF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Beth Labson Freeman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
* 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
JUL 10 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16703
Martin Malberg appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First Amendment
rights by obtaining a restraining order against him in state court. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Malberg’s action because Malberg
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were acting under color of
state law when they allegedly violated his First Amendment rights. See 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.”); Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1988)
(“Invoking state legal procedures does not constitute ‘joint participation’ or
‘conspiracy’ with state officials sufficient to satisfy section 1983’s state action
requirement.”); see also Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (18
U.S.C. §§ 241 and 242 provide no basis for civil liability).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --