Tanya McDaniel v. Daniel Powell

MEMORANDUM

Tanya Grace McDaniel appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from a traffic stop. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

' The district court properly dismissed McDaniel’s due process claims because McDaniel failed to allege facts sufficient to show that she had a protected property interest in the outcome of her administrative appeals and she failed to identify any deficiency in the process she was provided. See Brewster v. Bd. of Educ., 149 F.3d 971 , 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (“A procedural due process claim has two distinct elements: (1) a deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, and (2) a denial of adequate procedural protections.”); Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). McDaniel also failed to establish that…