Lim v. City & County of San Francisco, 012512 FED9, 10-16269

Docket Nº:10-16269
Party Name:MYRNA LIM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:January 25, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

MYRNA LIM, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-16269

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

January 25, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted January17, 2012 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California No. 3:09-cv-05083-CRB Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Myrna Lim appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action arising under various federal, state, and local laws, alleging numerous causes of action against the City and County of San Francisco, the San Francisco Ethics Commission and members of that Commission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal, Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lim's First Amendment claim because Lim failed to allege facts sufficient to show that her expressive conduct was a motivating factor for the alleged adverse action. See Marez v. Bassett, 595 F.3d 1068, 1074 (9th Cir. 2010).

The district court properly dismissed Lim's equal protection claim because Lim failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants acted with the intent to discriminate against her on the basis of her membership in a protected class or that she was similarly situated to candidates who received public funding. See Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005).

The district court properly dismissed Lim's due process claim because Lim failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she had any constitutionally protected interest in her reputation. See WMX Techs., Inc. v. Miller, 197 F.3d 367, 373 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc).

The district court properly dismissed Lim's malicious prosecution claim as time-barred. See Cline v. Brusett, 661 F.2d 108, 110 (9th Cir. 1981) (a malicious prosecution action accrues under federal law when the plaintiff knows or should know that the action has been terminated in her favor).

The district court properly dismissed Lim's conspiracy claim because the insufficiency of her allegations "to support a section 1983 violation precludes a conspiracy claim predicated upon the same allegations." Cassettari v. Nevada County, Cal...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP