NOT FOR PUBLICATION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

- GMN

NJK

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 c ourt’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.
C iv. P. 12(b)(6). Ass’n for L.A. Deputy Sheriffs v. County of L os A ngeles , 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 t o 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

t wo - part test for qualified immunity in the context of a claim for unlawful arrest ). The district court properly dismissed Ocasio’s e qual p rotection 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 p rotec tion 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
claim s against defendant s Gruner and Ta nner 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

proc ess c laim s against defendants Gruner and Tann er because Ocasio failed to3 17

- 17564

allege whether Gruner and Tanner deprived him of a constitutionally protected liberty inter est 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 a mend his complaint, and that it materially misstated facts of the

case.
AFFIRMED.