Stanley Swenson v. Siskiyou County

MEMORANDUM

Stanley Swenson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims regarding the deprivation of a vested property interest. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo. Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 619 (9th Cir.2004) (failure to state a claim); Rene v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc., 305 F.3d 1061, 1064 (9th Cir.2002) (en banc) (summary judgment). We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.

The district court properly dismissed Swenson’s § 1985 claim because Swenson failed to allege that defendants conspired to interfere with a federal officer’s duties, to obstruct a judicial proceeding, or to discriminate against him based on his race or other protected ground. See Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026 , 1027-28 & n. 3 (9th Cir.1985) (en banc)(listing elements of § 1985 claim).

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Swenson’s takings claim because Swenson failed to seek compensation from the state through an inverse condemnation action. See Schnuck v. City of Santa Monica, 935 F.2d 171, 173-74 (9th Cir.1991) (federal takings claim not ripe until plaintiff is denied compensation…