Legal Opinion

Jerolyn Sackman v. City of Los Angeles

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided February 16, 2017No. 15-55846UnpublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

MEMORANDUM *

Jerolyn Crute Sackman appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim based on a City of Los Angeles (“City”) law that prohibits parking in the same spot on a public street for at least 72 hours (“the 72-hour law”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

1. Sackman fails, as a matter of law, to state a claim for a violation of substantive due process. The…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
  3. Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2016
  4. Lone Star Security & Video, Inc. v. City of Los AngelesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Andrew Grimm v. City of PortlandCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2020

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API