Ann Hill v. County of Sacramento

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANN HILL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO; ROGER
DICKINSON; ROBERTA
MACGLASHAN; SUSAN PETERS;
JIMMIE YEE; DON NOTTOLI;
SACRAMENTO AIRPORT SYSTEM; G.
HARDY ACREE,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17564
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01565-GEB-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2012**
San Francisco, California
FILED
JAN 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, District Judge for the U.S. District***
Court for Southern New York, sitting by designation.
2
Before: WALLACE and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF, District
Judge.***
Plaintiff-Appellant Ann Hill appeals from the district court’s summary
judgment dismissal of her lawsuit alleging that the County of Sacramento and its
officials discriminated against her because of her race when the sublease for her
concession stand at the Sacramento County International Airport was not renewed.
As the facts and procedural history are familiar to the parties, we do not recite them
here except as necessary to explain our disposition. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The district court correctly dismissed Hill’s claims under Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified in 24 U.S.C. § 2000d-2000d-7, and 42 U.S.C. §
1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hill has failed to “show that actions of the defendants had a discriminatory impact,
and that defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate based upon
[Hill’s] membership in a protected class.” Darensburg v. Metro. Transp. Comm'n,
636 F.3d 511, 522 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and quotation marks omitted). The
decision not to renew Hill’s subcontract was part of a larger plan to improve the
financial performance of the airport’s concessions. SER 52-60. Similarly,

-- 2 of 3 --

3
defendants rejected Hill’s request for an advertising sign out of concern for public
safety. SER 48, 323-32.
Nor has Hill demonstrated that the defendants violated her equal protection
rights under the California Constitution. California’s “constitutional guarantee of
equal protection is substantially similar to that contained in the United States
Constitution.” Pro-Family Advocates v. Gomez, 46 Cal. App. 4th 1674, 1685 n.13
(1996). For the reasons stated above, Hill’s state equal protection claim fails.
The district court also correctly rejected Hill’s claim for a writ of mandate
under Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085 to compel the defendants to comply with federal
regulations involving disadvantaged business enterprises in airports, 49 C.F.R. §§
23.1-23.79, 26.7. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1085 authorizes only state courts to issue
writs of mandate. Moreover, Hill has not demonstrated that the county’s Airport
Concession Disadvantaged Business Enterprises program fails to comply with the
federal regulations.
Because we conclude that the district court properly granted summary
judgment to all defendants, we need not decide whether the county is liable for the
actions of defendant G. Hardy Acree.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --