Antoinette Jardine-Byrne v. Santa Cruz County Board of Law ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTOINETTE JARDINE-BYRNE, No. 17-17348
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03253-EJD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF
LAW LIBRARY TRUSTEES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Antoinette Jardine-Byrne appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law claims
arising from a suspension of her after-hours access to the Santa Cruz County Law
Library. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
*
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).
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jardine-Byrne’s Fourteenth
Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims because Jardine-Byrne
failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ conduct was egregious and
shocked the conscience, or that Jardine-Byrne did not receive an adequate
opportunity to be heard. See Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2006)
(substantive due process claim requires allegation of “egregious” official conduct
that “shocks the conscience” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991) (procedural due
process requires “notice and an opportunity to respond in some manner”).
The district court properly dismissed Jardine-Byrne’s “class of one” equal
protection claim because Jardine-Byrne failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
she was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated. See Vill. of
Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (elements of an equal protection
“class of one” claim); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to
avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
2 17-17348
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying in part Jardine-
Byrne’s request for judicial notice because the documents contained matters
outside the pleadings that were subject to dispute or were irrelevant. See Lee v.
City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of
review and circumstances under which judicial notice is inappropriate).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3 17-17348