NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUL 29 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK R. SMITH, No. 19-16381
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05472-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KATE BIEKER, Chief Executive Officer,
Superior Court, County of Alameda;
AFSCME LOCAL 2700,
Defendants-Appellees,
ROB BONTA, Attorney General,
Intervenor-Defendant-
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Mark R. Smith appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a First Amendment claim arising out of union
membership dues. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo the district court’s decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. Guatay
Christian Fellowship v. County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 970 (9th Cir. 2011).
We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547
F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
Summary judgment on Smith’s First Amendment claim against AFSCME
Local 2700 was proper because the deduction of union membership dues arose
from the private membership agreement between AFSCME Local 2700 and Smith,
and “private dues agreements do not trigger state action and independent
constitutional scrutiny.” Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946-49 (9th Cir. 2020),
cert. denied, No. 20-1120, 2021 WL 2519114 (June 21, 2021) (discussing state
action).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-16381