Case Name: Steven G. STROWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DOWNEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-09
Citations: 292 F. App'x 609
Docket Number: No. 07-55213
Parties: Steven G. STROWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DOWNEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
Steven G. STROWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DOWNEY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-55213.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.
Filed Sept. 9, 2008.
Steven G. Strowski, Norwalk, CA, pro se.
George Roscoe Trindle, III, Esq., Carpenter Rothans & Dumont, Los Angeles, CA, for City of Downey.
Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Steven G. Strowski appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim, and order requiring Strowski to obtain approval before filing future actions in the district court. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal. Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir.2003). We review for abuse of discretion the imposition of a pre-filing order. Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Strowski's action because he failed to show that he was denied a constitutionally protected due process interest. See Kildare, 325 F.3d at 1085 ("Procedural due process claims require [ ] a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest[.]").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a pre-filing review order after giving Strowski notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing a record for review, making findings of harassment, and narrowly tailoring the remedy. See Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057 (explaining four factors district courts must examine before entering pre-filing review orders).
Strowski's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.