NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALEXANDER OCASIO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v. 

WILLIAM PEREZ, et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-17564 

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00956-GMNNJK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

Alexander Ocasio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s 

dismissal based on qualified immunity and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ass’n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of Los Angeles, 648 F.3d 

 

* 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

AUG 22 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-17564 

986, 991 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. 

The district court properly dismissed Ocasio’s Fourth Amendment claims on 

the basis that defendants Perez and Gribbin were entitled to qualified immunity 

because at the time of Ocasio’s arrest, it would not have been clear to every 

reasonable officer that an arrest was unlawful under the circumstances. See 

Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663 F.3d 1071, 1075-76 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining 

two-part test for qualified immunity in the context of a claim for unlawful arrest). 

The district court properly dismissed Ocasio’s equal protection claims 

because Ocasio failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims. See Hebbe 

v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are 

liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible 

claim); Monteiro v. Tempe Union High Sch. Dist., 158 F.3d 1022, 1026 (9th Cir. 

1998) (§ 1983 equal protection claim must allege facts that are at least susceptible 

to an inference of intentional discrimination). 

The district court properly dismissed Ocasio’s Fifth Amendment due process 

claims against defendants Gruner and Tanner because both are state officials. See 

Bingue v. Prunchak, 512 F.3d 1169, 1174 (9th Cir. 2008) (Fifth Amendment due 

process clause only applies to the federal government).

The district court properly dismissed Ocasio’s Fourteenth Amendment due 

process claims against defendants Gruner and Tanner because Ocasio failed to 
3 17-17564 

allege whether Gruner and Tanner deprived him of a constitutionally protected 

liberty interest or adequate procedural protections. See Shanks v. Dressel, 540 

F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining substantive due process); Brewster v. 

Bd. of Educ., 149 F.3d 971, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (explaining requirements for 

procedural due process). 

We reject as meritless Ocasio’s contentions that the district court schemed to 

coerce him to amend his complaint, and that it materially misstated facts of the 

case. 

AFFIRMED.