FILED
MAR 10 2011
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WILLIAM B. BURLEIGH, No. 09-15908
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:07-cv-02332-RMW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
COUNTY OF MONTEREY, a public
entity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Ronald M. Whyte, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
William B. Burleigh appeals pro se from the district court’s summary
judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the County of Monterey
violated his equal protection and due process rights. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment because Burleigh
failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant violated his
rights by denying him a building permit. See N. Pacifica LLC v. City of Pacifica,
526 F.3d 478, 486 (9th Cir. 2008) (“In order to claim a violation of equal
protection in a class of one case, the plaintiff must establish that the [government
entity] intentionally, and without rational basis, treated the plaintiff differently
from others similarly situated.”); Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1090 (9th Cir.
2008) (procedural due process violation requires a deprivation of a protected
liberty interest by the government and lack of process); Dodd v. Hood River Cnty.,
59 F.3d 852, 864 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Federal judicial interference with a local
government zoning decision is proper only where the government body could have
no legitimate reason for its decision.”).
We do not address issues that Burleigh has not raised or argued on appeal.
See Cook v. Schriro, 538 F.3d 1000, 1014 n.5 (9th Cir. 2008).
AFFIRMED.
2 09-15908