Case ID: f-appx_292/html/0609-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Steven G. STROWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DOWNEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-55213.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
    
    Filed Sept. 9, 2008.
    Steven G. Strowski, Norwalk, CA, pro se.
    George Roscoe Trindle, III, Esq., Carpenter Rothans & Dumont, Los Angeles, CA, for City of Downey.
    Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Steven G. Strowski appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim, and order requiring Strowski to obtain approval before filing future actions in the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal. Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir.2003). We review for abuse of discretion the imposition of a pre-filing order. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Strowski’s action because he failed to show that he was denied a constitutionally protected due process interest. See Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1085 (“Procedural due process claims require [ ] a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest[.]”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a pre-filing review order after giving Strowski notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing a record for review, making findings of harassment, and narrowly tailoring the remedy. See Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (explaining four factors district courts must examine before entering pre-filing review orders).

Strowski’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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