
    Rick SIEGEL, an individual, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Angela M. BRADSTREET, in her official capacity as the Labor Commissioner for the State of California, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-56991.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 15, 2009.
    
    Filed Dec. 29, 2009.
    Rick Siegel, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    David Lee Gurley, California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, Los Ange-les, CA, Robert N. Villalovos, Staff, California Department of Industrial Relations, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Rick Siegel appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for injunctive and declaratory relief against the California Labor Commissioner. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir.2000). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court resolved Siegel’s claims on two grounds, one of which was on the merits. We affirm on that ground for the reasons stated by the district court. To the extent Siegel’s equal protection claim is based on the differences between the Talent Agencies Act and statutes regulating other occupational licenses, the claim fails because there is a rational basis for the California legislature’s decision to craft the Act differently from other licensing statutes. See Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis, 228 F.3d at 1050-53 (rejecting equal protection challenge to California licensing scheme under rational basis test and stating that “[i]t simply is not the function of the courts to tell California how to craft its legislation”).

Because Siegel does not state a claim under section 1983, his claim for declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 fails. See Hoeck v. City of Portland, 57 F.3d 781, 787 (9th Cir.1995).

Siegel’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

We deny Siegel’s request for judicial notice, and we deny as moot his motion to expedite this appeal.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     