Check how courts have cited this case. Use our free citator for the most current treatment.
No. 8622382
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
McNaughton v. UDC Homes Inc.
No. 8622382 · Decided June 20, 2006
No. 8622382·Ninth Circuit · 2006·
FlawFinder last updated this page Apr. 2, 2026
Case Details
Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided
June 20, 2006
Citation
No. 8622382
Disposition
See opinion text.
Full Opinion
MEMORANDUM ** Christopher J. McNaughton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action which arise from the purchase of his property from UDC Homes (“UDC”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rivera v. United States, 924 F.2d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm. McNaughton alleged that UDC conspired with the State of Arizona and the City of Phoenix to engage in “witness tampering” and deprive him of his constitutional rights. The district court properly dismissed McNaughton’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 , because McNaughton does not allege any affirmative acts taken by the UDC in furtherance of a conspiracy, or any other act under color of law that deprived him of his rights. See Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (“A plaintiff must allege *741 facts, not simply conclusions, that show that an individual was personally involved in the deprivation of his civil rights.”). McNaughton’s remaining contentions lack merit. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plain English Summary
McNaughton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
Key Points
01McNaughton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
02§ 1983 action which arise from the purchase of his property from UDC Homes (“UDC”).
03We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
04McNaughton alleged that UDC conspired with the State of Arizona and the City of Phoenix to engage in “witness tampering” and deprive him of his constitutional rights.
Frequently Asked Questions
McNaughton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C.
FlawCheck shows no negative treatment for McNaughton v. UDC Homes Inc. in the current circuit citation data.
This case was decided on June 20, 2006.
Use the citation No. 8622382 and verify it against the official reporter before filing.