NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD J. GLAIR, No. 20-55500
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02886-DDP-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
A. GUTIERREZ, a California Highway
Patrol Officer,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dean D. Pregerson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Richard J. Glair appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from his protest outside a state government
building. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Colony Cove Props.,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Glair’s action because Glair failed to
allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See United States v. Jacobsen,
466 U.S. 109, 113 (1984) (“A ‘seizure’ of property occurs when there is some
meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that
property.”); United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 551-52 (1980) (explaining
the threshold for detention under the Fourth Amendment); Ariz. Students’ Ass’n v.
Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 824 F.3d 858, 867 (9th Cir. 2016) (to make out a First
Amendment retaliation claim, plaintiff must allege interference or an intention to
interfere with a constitutionally protected activity); see also Reese v. County of
Sacramento, 888 F.3d 1030, 1040-41 (9th Cir. 2018) (elements of a Bane Act
claim under California Civil Code section 52.1).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-55500