Stewart Lamle v. City of Santa Monica
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Stewart Lamle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims challenging ordinances that regulate his sale of a board game at an outdoor pedestrian mall in Santa Monica. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo both the dismissal of claims and summary judgment, Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir.2009), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lamle’s First Amendment claims facially challenging both ordinances at issue because Lamle failed to allege facts as to how the ordinances impermissibly restricted expressive conduct or were unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. See Foti v. City of Menlo Park, 146 F.3d 629, 635 (9th Cir.1998).
The district court properly dismissed Lamle’s First Amendment claim alleging an as-applied challenge to the Street Performers Ordinance because Lamle failed to allege how the allegedly under-inclusive definition of street performance in this ordinance amounted to viewpoint discrimination. See id.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Lamle’s First Amendment claim alleging an as-applied challenge to the…