Tanishia Hubbard v. Service Employees International Union Local 2015;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TANISHIA HUBBARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SERVICE EMPLOYEES
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL
2015; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-16408
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-00670-KJM-JDP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, NGUYEN, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellant Tanishia Hubbard is an in-home supportive services provider in
California. Until late 2019, she paid union dues to Appellee SEIU Local 2015.
FILED
OCT 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

Hubbard brings several federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against SEIU Local
2015 and two California state officials, as well as six state-law claims against SEIU
Local 2015. The district court granted Appellees’ motions to dismiss Hubbard’s
federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
1. The § 1983 claims against SEIU Local 2015 fail for lack of state action. See
Belgau v. Inslee, 975 F.3d 940, 946–49 (9th Cir. 2020); Wright v. Serv. Emps. Int’l
Union Loc. 503, 48 F.4th 1112, 1121–25 (9th Cir. 2022).
2. Hubbard lacks standing to seek prospective relief against the California
officials. Her dues deductions stopped before she filed suit, and the district court did
not err in finding that Hubbard has not shown that future injury is sufficiently likely
to warrant prospective relief.
AFFIRMED.
2

-- 2 of 2 --