Mark Harrison v. J. Dennerline

MEMORANDUM

Mark Harrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims relating to his misdemeanor prosecution. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Harrison’s Fourteenth Amendment claims because Harrison was neither denied procedural due process nor subjected to conduct that violated his substantive due process rights. See County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 834 , 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) (“[T]he cognizable level of executive abuse of power [for a substantive due process violation] is that which shocks the conscienee[.]”); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (“The fundamental requirement of [procedural] due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”’).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Harrison’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191,…