RONALD NORDSTROM V. GEOFF DEAN, No. 16-55901 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 8 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RONALD NORDSTROM, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-55901 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-07607-DMGFFM v. GEOFF DEAN, Ventura County Sheriff, MEMORANDUM* Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 23, 2017** Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges Ronald Nordstrom appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Second Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mashiri v. Epsten Grinnell & Howell, 845 F.3d 984, 988 * 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). (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Nordstrom’s Second Amendment claim because “the Second Amendment does not protect, in any degree, the carrying of concealed firearms by members of the general public.” Peruta v. County of San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, 942 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc). AFFIRMED. 2 16-55901

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.