Brock v. City of Bellingham

── Brock v. City of Bellingham ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 26, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MICHAEL BROCK; MATTHEW LEROY No. 25-1070 ALLBAUGH; CRAIG BREWER; KELLY D.C. No. GAMBINI; ROBERT VINCENT 2:24-cv-00850-BJR GLORIOSO; JASON HAGIN; DANIEL LARSEN; BRIAN LONG; SHAWN CURTIS MANTHEY; PAUL MEMORANDUM* PLUSCHAKOV; CALEB RODRIGUEZ; HANNAH SNAVELY; ANGELA TERRY; DION TERRY; TAWSHA KATHLEEN THOMPSON; WILLIAM TRAVIS TRUEMAN; TIMOTHY VAN DYKE; TIM VANDERMEY; ELISABETH OAKES; GALINA D'AMELIO; JOEL DOUGLAS; BRENNAN JACOBY; JEREMIAH LELAND; DAVID LITTLE; NEAL LUNDE; REBEKAH ROYEV, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CITY OF BELLINGHAM; SETH FLEETWOOD, Mayor, City of Bellingham, Washington, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Barbara Jacobs Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 20, 2026** Seattle, Washington Before: TALLMAN, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. This case arises from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate imposed by Seth Fleetwood, the Mayor of the City of Bellingham. Plaintiffs-Appellants, former City employees, were fired after they refused to comply with the mandate. They now appeal from the district court’s order dismissing their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) with prejudice and without leave to amend. We affirm. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the grant of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Saloojas, Inc. v. Aetna Health of Cal., Inc., 80 F.4th 1011, 1014 (9th Cir. 2023). Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Curtis v. Inslee, 154 F.4th 678, 695 (9th Cir. 2025), petition for cert. filed, No. 25- 1119 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2026). 1. The district court did not err in dismissing the SAC for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs-Appellants presented nine causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and two causes of action under Washington common law. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 25-1070  Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to state a claim that they were deprived of the option to accept or refuse without consequence administration of drugs authorized for emergency use because their first cause of action relies on sources that do not create rights enforceable under § 1983. See Curtis, 154 F.4th at 687–91. Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to state a claim for violations of equal protection or substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Their claims under both doctrines are subject to rational basis review. Id. at 691–94; Health Freedom Def. Fund v. Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020, 1025, 1029–33 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc). Accepting as true the factual allegations in the SAC and its attachments, the information available to Mayor Fleetwood showed: (1) that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had found, and Pfizer’s data confirmed, that the Pfizer- BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine provided protection against COVID-19 to at least 84% of recipients, with protection levels decreasing over time; (2) that COMIRNATY, which was FDA-licensed, had the same formulation as the