NOT FOR PUBLICATION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-MMDGWF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 18, 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 search 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, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-16989 

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

Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm 

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 and 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 failed 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 Nation’s history and tradition.” (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted)).

The district court properly dismissed the Marutyans’ Fourth Amendment 
3 18-16989 

claim because the Marutyans 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 that the Marutyans sufficiently pled 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 proceed on the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim

only. 

We reject as meritless the Maruytans’ 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. 

AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.