NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARA V. MARUTYAN; et al.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v. LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 18

- 16989
D.C. No. 2:16

- cv - 01089

- MMD

GWF

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 1 8 , 2019 **
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Ara V. Marutyan , Arthur Marutyan, and Diana Marutyan appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
various constitutional claims in connection with the sea rch and seizure of their personal property

. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

* 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). 

# FILED

SEP 25 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 18

- 16989

novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)

. Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger , 913 F.3d 884, 8 90 (9th Cir. 2019). We aff irm in part, vacate in part, and remand

. The district court properly dismissed the Marutyans’ Second Amendment
claim because the Marutyans failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible
claim

. See Hebbe v. Pliler , 627 F.3d 338, 341

- 42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief) ; see also District of Columbia v. Heller , 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (Second Amendment right to keep a nd bear arms

“ [ is ] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose” )

. The district court properly dismissed the Marutyans’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process claim because the Marutyans faile d to allege facts
sufficient to show a deprivation of a fundamental right or liberty interest. See
Tutor

- Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey , 452 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006) (“ To establish a violation of substantive due process, a plaintiff must first show a deprivation of some fundamental right or liberty interest that is deeply rooted in
this Natio n’ s history and tradition

. ” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted ) )

. The district court properly dismissed the Marutyan s ’ Fourth Amendment3 18

- 16989

claim b ecause the Marutyan s failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department lacked probable cause to search their
homes and dorm room and seize various items of personal property

. See Illinois v.
Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) ( probable cause requires a showing that there is a “fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place”).
Because the district court concluded tha t the Marutyans sufficiently ple d a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim in the original complaint and
the operative First Amended Complaint also pleads a procedural due process claim, we vacate the judgment in part and remand to the district court so that this action may procee d on the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim only

. We reject as meritless the Maruytan s ’ contention that the district court erred in failing to address their request for a jury trial

. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AF FIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.