N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ANDREW

ANDER SEN, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. JEFFER Y B EAR D, Se c re t ary

of the C a l ifornia De pt. of C orre c t ions a

nd R e h a bilita tion in his offic ia l c a

pa c ity , De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 14-15202 D.C . No. 4:11-c v-03752-YGR M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Northe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Yvonne Gonz a le z R oge rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding

Subm itte d De c e m

be r 9, 2014 ** B e fore : WALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd B YB EE, C i rc uit Judge s . Andre w Ande rse n, a

C a lifornia sta

te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging due proc e s s a nd e qua l prote c t ion viola

t ions. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C .



# FIL ED D EC 22 2014 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 9th C ir. R . 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).§ 1291. W e re vie wde novo a dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A, a nd we m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c orde d . Hamilton v . Brow n , 630 F.3d 889, 892-893 (9th C ir. 2011). W e a ffirm . To the e xte nt tha

t Ande rse n’ s due proc e ss c la im s re l ate to his futurepa role e ligibility , the distric t c ourt prope rly dism i sse d the m

be c a u se Ande rse n la c ke d sta nding. Se eLujan v . De

fe nde rs of W

ildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (ide ntify ing thre e c ore re quire m e nts for sta nding unde r Artic le III of the Unite d Stat e s C onstitution). To the e xte nt tha

t Ande rse n brought a substa ntive due proc e ss c la i m , dism issa l wa s prope r be c a use Ande rse n fa i le d to a lle g e fa c ts suffic ie nt to sta te suc h a c la im . Se eC

ounty of Sac rame nto v . Le w is , 523 U.S. 833, 846-47 (1998) (for a substa ntive due proc e ss viola

tion, thec onduc t at issuem ust be arbitra

ry , or shoc k the c onsc ie nc e and viola

te the de c e nc ie s of c i viliz e d c onduc t ). Dism issa l of Ande rse n’ s e qua l prote c tion c la im wa s prope r be c a

use Ande rse n doe s not a lle ge tha t he is a m e m be r of a suspe c t c l a ss, a nd the a lle ge d c la ssific ations a

re rationa lly

re l ate d to le gitim at e sta

te inte re sts. Se eUnite d State s v . J uv e n ileMale , 670 F.3d 999, 1009 (9th C ir. 2012) (e xpla ining tha t gove rnm e nt a c tions tha

t do not involve

suspe c t c la ssific at ions a

re subje c t to ra

t iona l ba sis re vie w). 1 4 - 1 5 2 0 2 2The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

dism i ssing Ande rse n’ s se c o nd a m e nde d c om

pla int without le av e to a

m e nd a fte r providing Anderse n with an opportunity to a

m e nd a nd c o nc luding tha

t furthe r am e ndm e nt would be futile . Se e C e rv a nte s v . C ountryw ideHomeLoans, Inc . , 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th C ir. 2011) (se tting forth sta

nda rd of re v ie w a

nd e xpla ining tha

t le ave to a

m e nd should be give n unle ss a

m e ndm e nt would befutile ). W e re je c t Ande rse n’ s c onte ntion re ga rding thetim ing of thedistric t c ourt’ s initia l sc re e ning unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A. W e do not c onside r Ande rse n ’ s c o nte ntions re ga rding the first a

m e nde d c om pla i nt, whic h wa s supe rse de d by the ope rative se c ond a

m e nde d c om

pla int. Ande rse n’ s “ re que st c ha

nge of Pla intiff’ s/Appe lla nt’ s na m e in c a ption,” file d on M ay 28, 2014, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 4 - 1 5 2 0 2 3