Hafid Tahraoui v. Franklin Brown

MEMORANDUM

Hafid Tahraoui appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). Romano v. Bible, 169 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir.1999). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 965 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Tahraoui’s First Amendment retaliation claim because Tahraoui failed to allege facts showing that defendants acted with the intent of chilling Tahraoui’s protected conduct. See Skoog v. County of Clackamas, 469 F.3d 1221, 1232 (9th Cir.2006) (in a First Amendment retaliation claim, plaintiff must demonstrate that defendant’s “desire to cause the chilling effect was a but-for cause of the defendant’s action”).

The district court properly dismissed Tahraoui’s Fourth Amendment claim because Tahraoui was not seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. See Brendlin v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 254 , 127 S.Ct. 2400 , 168…