NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTOINETTE JARDINE-BYRNE, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD OF 

LAW LIBRARY TRUSTEES; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 17-17348 

D.C. No. 5:16-cv-03253-EJD 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2018**

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

Antoinette Jardine-Byrne appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional and state law claims 

arising from a suspension of her after-hours access to the Santa Cruz County Law 

Library. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 

 

* 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 17-17348 

district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Doe v. Abbott Labs., 571 F.3d 930, 933 (9th Cir. 2009). We 

affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jardine-Byrne’s Fourteenth 

Amendment substantive and procedural due process claims because Jardine-Byrne 

failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants’ conduct was egregious and 

shocked the conscience, or that Jardine-Byrne did not receive an adequate 

opportunity to be heard. See Brittain v. Hansen, 451 F.3d 982, 991 (9th Cir. 2006) 

(substantive due process claim requires allegation of “egregious” official conduct 

that “shocks the conscience” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 

Raditch v. United States, 929 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1991) (procedural due 

process requires “notice and an opportunity to respond in some manner”). 

The district court properly dismissed Jardine-Byrne’s “class of one” equal 

protection claim because Jardine-Byrne failed to allege facts sufficient to show that 

she was intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated. See Vill. of 

Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (elements of an equal protection 

“class of one” claim); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to 

avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)).
3 17-17348 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying in part JardineByrne’s request for judicial notice because the documents contained matters 

outside the pleadings that were subject to dispute or were irrelevant. See Lee v. 

City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 689 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of 

review and circumstances under which judicial notice is inappropriate). 

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.