22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T462,MEMORANDUM Stephen B. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that section 2054 of the California Business and Professions Code is unconstitutional and violates his First Amendment right to free speech. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir.2013). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Turner’s action because Turner’s claims are not ripe for review where the statute has not been applied to him, and it is speculative that it will be applied to him. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 , 1139 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (in First Amendment context, courts consider “whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T48f,

MEMORANDUM

Stephen B. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that section 2054 of the California Business and Professions Code is unconstitutional and violates his First Amendment right to free speech. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Pride v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir.2013). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Turner’s action because Turner’s claims are not ripe for review where the statute has not been applied to him, and it is speculative that it will be applied to him. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 , 1139 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (in First Amendment context, courts consider “whether the prosecuting authorities have communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and the history of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.