Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 10124479
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Daniel McNab v. Gavin Newsom
No. 10124479 · Decided September 24, 2024
No. 10124479·Ninth Circuit · 2024·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
September 24, 2024
Citation
No. 10124479
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL MCNAB, No. 23-55419
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:22-cv-00843-DSF-E
v.
MEMORANDUM*
GAVIN NEWSOM,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 24, 2024**
Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Daniel McNab appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that California Governor Gavin Newsom
violated his constitutional right to equal protection through state government
orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We review de novo a
*
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).
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035 (9th Cir. 2015), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed McNab’s action because McNab failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim that tattoo artists and business
owners, like McNab, were similarly situated to the medical practitioners and
pharmacy professionals classified as essential businesses under the challenged
COVID-19 orders. See United States v. Quintero, 995 F.3d 1044, 1056 (9th
Cir. 2021) (setting forth elements of a class-based equal protection claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McNab’s first
amended complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been
futile. See Barahona v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 881 F.3d 1122, 1134 (9th Cir. 2018)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that amendment is futile if no set
of facts can be proven by amendment that would constitute a valid and sufficient
claim or defense).
AFFIRMED.
2 23-55419
Plain English Summary
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2024 MOLLY C.
Key Points
01NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2024 MOLLY C.
02Fischer, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 24, 2024** Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
03Daniel McNab appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
04§ 1983 action alleging that California Governor Gavin Newsom violated his constitutional right to equal protection through state government orders issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Frequently Asked Questions
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2024 MOLLY C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for Daniel McNab v. Gavin Newsom in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on September 24, 2024.
Use the citation No. 10124479 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.