FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 08 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN B. TURNER, No. 13-16903
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01940-CRB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDMUND G. BROWN, JR.; STATE OF
CALIFORNIA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Stephen B. Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that section 2054 of the California
Business and Professions Code is unconstitutional and violates his First
*
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).
Amendment right to free speech. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Pride
v. Correa, 719 F.3d 1130, 1133 (9th Cir. 2013). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Turner’s action because Turner’s
claims are not ripe for review where the statute has not been applied to him, and it
is speculative that it will be applied to him. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal
Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (in First
Amendment context, courts consider “whether the prosecuting authorities have
communicated a specific warning or threat to initiate proceedings, and the history
of past prosecution or enforcement under the challenged statute”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-16903