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

AYM OND ANDR

EW S, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. S. TOR RES, C orre c t i ona l C a se R e c ords M ana ge r; e t

a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 14-16014 D.C . No. 1:12-c v-01042-GSA 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 Gary S. Austin, M a g istra

te Judge , Pre s iding ** Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 17, 2015 *** B e fore : O’ SC ANNLAIN, LEAVY, a n d FER N ANDEZ, C irc uit Judge s. David R aym ond Andre ws, a C a lifornia

sta te prisone r, a

ppe a l s pro se from the d istric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging due 

# FIL ED MAR 02 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, 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. ** Andre ws c onse nte d to proc e e d be fore a m a gistra

t e judge . Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The pa

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

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).proc e s s a

nd e qua l prote c t ion viola

t ions in c onne c t ion with the proc e ssing of prison grie va nc e s. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re vie wde novo. Barre n v . Harrington , 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th C ir. 1998) (orde r) (dism issa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915(e )(2)(B )(ii)); Ramire z v . Galaza , 334 F.3d 850, 853 (9th C ir. 2003) (dismissa l unde r 28 U.S.C . § 1915A). W e a ffirm in pa rt, re ve rse in pa

rt, and re m and. The distric t c ourt e rre d in de te rm ining tha t Andre ws’ s § 1983 c l a im s we re He c k -barre d be c a

use Andre ws sought only the re c a lc ulation of his m i nim um e ligiblepa

role dat e (“ M EPD” ), an outc om e tha t would not ne c e ssa

rily re s ult in e arlie r re l e a se or im

ply the inva lidity

of Andre w s’ s c ontinue d c o n fine m e nt. Se e Ramire z , 334 F.3d a

t 856 (“ [T] he a

pplic a bility of the favora

ble te rm ination rule turns sole ly

on whe t he r a suc c e ssful § 1983 ac tion would ne c e ssa rily re n d e r inva lid a c onvic tion, se nte nc e , or a dm inistra tive sa nc tion tha t a ffe c t e d the le n gth of the prisone r’ s c onfine m e nt.” ); In reDanne nbe rg , 104 P.3d 783, 791, 804-05 (C a l. 2005) (M EPD doe s not de te rm ine re le a se date be c a use C a lifornia

prisone r ha s no right to a re le a s e date prior to be ing de e m e d suita ble for pa role ), ov e rrule d in part on othe r grounds by

In reLaw re nc e , 190 P.3d 535, 539 (C a l. 2008). The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the e q

ua l prote c tion a

n d due proc e ss c la im s on the se pa

ra te grounds tha

t Andre ws pre s e nte d only c onc lusory a lle gations
1 4 - 1 6 0 1 4 2of inte ntiona l disc rim ination, se e Barre n , 152 F.3d a t 1194 (e qua l prote c tion c la im re quire s showing tha

t “ de fe nda

nts a c te d with a

n inte nt or purposeto disc rim inate a ga inst thepla intiff ba se d upon m e m

be rship in a

prote c te d c la ss” ), and fa ile d to a lle ge fa c ts im

plic at ing a

prote c te d libe rty

inte re st, se e Ramire

z , 334 F.3d a

t 860- 61 (disc ussing re quire m e nts for due proc e ss c la im s in prison c onte x t). Howe v e r, dism issa l of Andre ws’ s c la im s without le ave to a m e nd wa s im prope r at this e arly

sta ge of the proc e e dings. S e e Ramire z , 334 F.3d a

t 861 (le ave to a

m e nd should be

gran te d unle ss the ple a ding c ould not possibly be c ure d by am e ndm e nt); Flow e rs v . First Hawaiian Bank , 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th C ir. 2002) (this c ourt is “ ve ry

c a utious in a

pproving a

distric t c o urt’ s de c ision to deny pro se litiga

nts le ave to a

m e nd” ) . B e c a use of our disposition, we do not a ddre ss the distric t c ourt’ s de c ision de c lining to e xe rc i se jurisdic t ion ove r the pe n de nt sta te la wc l a im s, but we va c ate that de c ision to perm it the distric t c ourt to a ddre s s the issue on re m an d. Ac c ordingly , we re ve rse and re m and with instruc tions to allow Andre ws a n opportunity

to file an am e nde d c om

pla i nt. AFFIRM E D in par t, RE V E RSE D in par t, and RE M ANDE D.

1 4 - 1 6 0 1 4 3