Rick Siegel, an individual v. Angela M. Bradstreet

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).
JS/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICK SIEGEL, an individual,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANGELA M. BRADSTREET, in her
official capacity as the Labor
Commissioner for the State of California,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-56991
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-02480-CAS-SS
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Rick Siegel appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
FILED
DEC 29 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

JS/Research 08-56991 2
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California
Labor Commissioner. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo. Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of
Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000). We may affirm on any ground
supported by the record. Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2001). We
affirm.
The district court resolved Siegel’s claims on two grounds, one of which was
on the merits. We affirm on that ground for the reasons stated by the district court.
To the extent Siegel’s equal protection claim is based on the differences between
the Talent Agencies Act and statutes regulating other occupational licenses, the
claim fails because there is a rational basis for the California legislature’s decision
to craft the Act differently from other licensing statutes. See Nat’l Ass’n for the
Advancement of Psychoanalysis, 228 F.3d at 1050-53 (rejecting equal protection
challenge to California licensing scheme under rational basis test and stating that
“[i]t simply is not the function of the courts to tell California how to craft its
legislation”).
Because Siegel does not state a claim under section 1983, his claim for
declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 fails. See Hoeck v. City of Portland, 57
F.3d 781, 787 (9th Cir. 1995).

-- 2 of 3 --

JS/Research 08-56991 3
Siegel’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
We deny Siegel’s request for judicial notice, and we deny as moot his
motion to expedite this appeal.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --