Andrew Andersen v. Jeffery Beard ( 2014 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DEC 22 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ANDREW ANDERSEN, No. 14-15202
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-03752-YGR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JEFFERY BEARD, Secretary of the
California Dept. of Corrections and
Rehabilitation in his official capacity,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Andrew Andersen, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due
process and equal protection violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and we may
affirm on any ground supported by the recorded. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d
889, 892-893 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
To the extent that Andersen’s due process claims relate to his future parole
eligibility, the district court properly dismissed them because Andersen lacked
standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)
(identifying three core requirements for standing under Article III of the United
States Constitution).
To the extent that Andersen brought a substantive due process claim,
dismissal was proper because Andersen failed to allege facts sufficient to state such
a claim. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 846-47 (1998) (for a
substantive due process violation, the conduct at issue must be arbitrary, or shock
the conscience and violate the decencies of civilized conduct).
Dismissal of Andersen’s equal protection claim was proper because
Andersen does not allege that he is a member of a suspect class, and the alleged
classifications are rationally related to legitimate state interests. See United States
v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012) (explaining that government
actions that do not involve suspect classifications are subject to rational basis
review).
2 14-15202
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Andersen’s
second amended complaint without leave to amend after providing Andersen with
an opportunity to amend and concluding that further amendment would be futile.
See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should
be given unless amendment would be futile).
We reject Andersen’s contention regarding the timing of the district court’s
initial screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
We do not consider Andersen’s contentions regarding the first amended
complaint, which was superseded by the operative second amended complaint.
Andersen’s “request change of Plaintiff’s/Appellant’s name in caption,”
filed on May 28, 2014, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 14-15202