Jeremy Crozier v. Adam Endel

MEMORANDUM

Nevada state prisoner Jeremy Allen Crozier appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging equal protection, unlawful seizure, access-to-courts, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). The court may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s equal protection claim because he failed to allege that defendants intentionally discriminated against him based on his membership in a suspect class or that defendants’ conduct lacked any rational basis. See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-81 (9th Cir.1999).

The district court properly dismissed Crozier’s claim for unlawful seizure of property because there is no Fourth Amendment right to be free from searches and seizures in prison. See Seaton v. Mayberg, 610 F.3d 530, 534 (9th Cir.2010)…