MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Ruff cross-appeals from the district court’s judgment following a jury ver- *244 diet in his favor as to his procedural due process claim against Kings County and several named county officials, but adverse as to his substantive due process and equal protection claims. Ruff contends that the district court erred in rejecting his requested jury instruction stating that amendments to county general plans are not valid unless published post adoption. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

California Government Code section 65356 provides that general plans shall be amended by resolution. Because only ordinances, and not resolutions, are subject to the publication requirement of section 25124 of the California Government Code, the district court did not err in rejecting Ruffs requested instruction that a resolution to amend a county’s general plan is not valid unless published after adoption. Midway Orchards v. County of Butte, 220 Cal.App.3d 765, 774-75, 779, 269 Cal.Rptr. 796 (1990); City of Sausalito v. County of Marin, 12 Cal.App.3d 550, 565-66, 90 Cal.Rptr. 843 (1970).

AFFIRMED.