NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 afte r - 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, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 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 an d
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 opportun ity 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
sh e was intentionally treated differently from others si milarly 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 f ace” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) )

.3 17

- 17348

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying in part Jardine

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