N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TER R YK. PLEASANT, Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. C OUNTY OF M ER C ED; e t a l .,

De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-16247 D.C . No. 1:13-c v-00805-AW ISKO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 13, 2016 * * B e fore : HAW K INS, N.R . SM ITH, a nd HUR W ITZ, C irc uit Judge s. Te rry K. Ple a sa

nt, a form e r C ounty

of M e rc e d pre tria l de ta ine e , a ppe a ls pro se from the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismi ssing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging fe de ra l an d sta

te la w c la im s in c onne c tion with the de nia l of indigent we lfare kits, whic h c o nta in ite m s ne c e ssa ry for inm ate s to m a inta in pe rsona l



# FIL ED SEP 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).hy gie ne . W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie w de novo a

dism issa l for fa ilure to sta t e a c la im unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 1915A a nd 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii). Re

snic k v . Hay e

s , 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th C ir. 2000); Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, va c ate in pa

rt, a nd re m and. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ple a sa

nt’ s “ c la ss of one ” e q

ua l prote c tion c la im be c a

use Ple a sa

nt fa ile d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to show tha t he wa s tre ate d diffe re ntly

tha n sim ila rly situa te d individuals. Se eVillage of W illow brook

v . Ole c h , 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (se tting forth e l e m e nts of “ c la ss of one ” c la im). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Ple a sa

nt’ s c o nspira c y

c la im s be c a

use Ple a sa nt fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts suffic ie nt to show c la ss-ba se d, invidiously disc rim inatory

an im us. Se eSe v e r v . Alask

a Pulp C orp. , 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th C ir. 1992) (se tting forth e le m e nts of c la im unde r 42 U.S.C . § 1985(3)); Tay lor v
. De latoore , 281 F.3d 844, 849 (9th C ir. 2002) (indigent prisone rs a re not a suspe c t c la ss); se ealso Allen v . Gold C ountry C asino , 464 F.3d 1044, 1048 (9th C ir. 2006) (no priva te right of a c tion under 18 U.S.C . § 241). Dism issa l of Ple a s ant’ s c onditions-of-c onfine m e nt c la i m wa s pre m ature be c a use Ple a sa

nt a lle ge d tha

t he wa s e ntire ly

de nie d a c c e s s to indigent we lfare kits

1 5 - 1 6 2 4 7 2for six a

nd one -ha l f we e k s , while non-indigent inm ate s c ould purc ha se pe rsona l hy gie ne ite m s. Libe ra l ly

c onstrue d, the se a lle gations in the first a m e nde d c om pla i nt we re “ suffic i e nt to wa rrant orde ring [de fe nda

nts] to filean a

nswe r.” W ilhe lm v . Rotman , 680 F.3d 1113, 1116 (9th C i r. 2012); se ealso K e e nan v . Hall , 83 F.3d 1083, 1091 (9th C ir. 1996), ame nde d by 135 F.3d 1318 (9th C ir. 1998) (indige nt inm ate s ha

ve a right to persona l hy g ie n e supplie s). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d for la c k of sta

nding Ple a sa

nt’ s due proc e s s c la im s a

rising from

e xc e ssive fine s a

nd the unla

w ful de priva

tion of prope rty . Se eGuatay

C hristian Fe llow

ship v . C ounty of San Die

go , 670 F.3d 957, 983-84 (9th C ir. 2011) (proc e dura l due proc e ss c l a im s ripe n only whe n a distinc t prope rty de priva tion ha s oc c urre d). Howe ve r, we va c ate dismissa l of the se c la im s and re m and for the distric t c ourt to dism iss thec l a im s without pre judic e . Se eFle c k & Assoc s., Inc . v . C

ity of Phoe nix , 471 F.3d 1100, 1106-07 (9th C ir. 2006) (dism i ssa l for la c k of sta

nding is without pre

judic e ). The distric t c ourt dismisse d Ple a sa nt’ s sta te la w c la im s for la c k of jurisdic tion. In light of our disposition, we va c ate the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l of the s tat e la

w c l a im s, a

n d re m a n d for the distric t c ourt to de c ide whe the r to e xe rc ise supple m e nta l jurisdic tion ove r the se c la im s . In sum , we a ffirm

the dismissa l of Ple a sa

nt’ s e qua l prote c tion a

nd

1 5 - 1 6 2 4 7 3c onspira c y

c la im s; re ve rse the dismissa l of Ple a sa nt’ s c o n ditions-of-c onfine m e nt c la im ; va c ate the dism issa l of Ple a s ant’ s due proc e ss c la im for e xc e ssive fine s, due proc e s s c la im

for unla wful de priva

tion of property , a

nd sta te la wc l a im s; a

n d re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, VA CAT E D in par t, and RE M A NDE D.

1 5 - 1 6 2 4 7 4