Case ID: f-appx_17/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Will MACPHEAT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joe MAZUREK; Rick Day, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-35019.
    D.C. No. CV-00-00122-M-DWM.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 13, 2001.
    
    Decided Aug. 30, 2001.
    Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies appellees' request for oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Will MacPheat appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Montana Sexual or Violent Offender Registration Act (the “Act”) violates the Ex Post Facto Clause and Due Process Clause. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of an action for failure to state a claim. Kruso v. Int’l Tel. & Tel. Corp., 872 F.2d 1416, 1421 (9th Cir.1989).

Because MacPheat failed to allege a cognizable legal theory or sufficient facts to-síate a cognizable legal theory that the Act violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, the district court properly dismissed this claim. See Russell v. Gregoire, 124 F.3d 1079, 1086-94 (9th Cir.1997).

Because MacPheat failed to allege a property or liberty interest protected under the Due Process Clause, the district court properly dismissed this claim. See id. at 1093-94.

We deny appellees’ request for supplemental briefing.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.