CHRISTOPHER DARKINS V. DAVID SNOWDEN, No. 13-56865 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 02 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER OJI DARKINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-56865 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-03831-JLSMAN v. DAVID SNOWDEN, in his official capacity as Beverly Hills Chief of Police, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 26, 2016** Before: McKEOWN, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Christopher Oji Darkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). review de novo. Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 956 (9th Cir. 2013) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)); Sommatino v. United States, 255 F.3d 704, 707 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Darkins’ action because Darkins cannot state a claim directly under the United States Constitution. See Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912 (9th Cir. 2001) (“This Court has held that a litigant complaining of a violation of a constitutional right does not have a direct cause of action under the United States Constitution but must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”). Moreover, to the extent that Darkins’ complaint can be liberally construed to allege claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the district court properly dismissed Darkins’ action because Darkins failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See United Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Camden, 465 U.S. 208, 217 (1984) (in-state residents “have no claim under the Privileges and Immunities Clause” to challenge their state’s laws). AFFIRMED. 2 13-56865

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.