Stanley Clarke v. City of Madera

MEMORANDUM

Stanley Bradford Clarke appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismiss ing his action alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. He also appeals from the order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim and a dismissal on qualified immunity grounds. Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F.3d 952 , 966 n. 18 (9th Cir. 2004). We review for an abuse of discretion an order denying reconsideration. Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir.1993). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the federal claims against the City of Ma-dera because Clarke failed to allege constitutional deprivations resulting from any official custom or policy. See Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 690-91 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978).

The district court properly dismissed the federal claims against the remaining defendants on qualified immunity grounds because, regardless of the constitutionality of their actions, defendants did not violate any of Clarke’s clearly established rights. See .Pearson v.…