Eugene Baker v. Loretta E. Lynch

MEMORANDUM

Eugene Baker alleged in his first amended complaint that 18 U.S.C. § 922 (g)(9) violates his Second and Fourteenth Amendment rights. That federal statute prohibits anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence from owning a firearm. Baker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his case with prejudice. We affirm.

As a preliminary matter, the district court did not err by construing the parties’ status briefs as a motion to dismiss and opposition. A district court may dismiss a complaint on its own initiative and motion as long as the plaintiff receives notice and an opportunity to respond in at least a written filing. See Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981). Here, Defendants asked the district court to construe their briefing as a motion to dismiss, and the district court gave notice of its intent to do so. Baker also had an opportunity to submit a written opposition. He has not identified any argument he was unable to make or any other prejudice he suffered as a result of the procedures the district court followed.

Turning to the merits of Baker’s claims, we review the district court’s decision de novo. See Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS…