Deparrie
Deparrie v. Hanzo
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Paul deParrie appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action alleging that defendants violated his rights by obtaining a permanent stalking protective order against him. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, see Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1154 , 119 S.Ct. 1058 , 143 L.Ed.2d 63 (1999), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed deParrie’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim because he failed to allege facts to establish that the defendants acted under color of state law. See Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 837 , 102 S.Ct. 2764 , 73 L.Ed.2d 418 (1982); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1538 (9th Cir.1992).
Because deParrie failed to demonstrate that he belongs to a protected class, the district court properly dismissed his section 1985(3) action. See Sever, 978 F.2d at 1536 ; Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1028 (9th Cir.1985) (stating that an allegation of class-based discrimination is required to plead a section 1985(3) cause of action).