Metteyya Brahmana v. Joseph Henard

MEMORANDUM

Metteyya Brahmana appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his lawsuit alleging that Officer Joseph Henard violated numerous federal and state laws when he informed third parties of a criminal investigation against Brahma-na that was ultimately dropped. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo, Mullins v. Oregon, 57 F.3d 789, 792 (9th Cir.1995), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brahmana’s due process claims because Brahmana failed to allege either a violation of a liberty interest protected by the substantive aspect of the Due Process Clause, or insufficient procedural protections of his state-created liberty interests in violation of the procedural aspect of the Due Process Clause. See id. at 793-95 (explaining that while procedural due process claims may arise from state-created liberty inter-' ests, a substantive due process claim requires a violation of a fundamental liberty).

The district court properly dismissed Brahmana’s equal protection claim premised on a “class of one” theory because such a claim is inapplicable to the inherently discretionary decision by officials to investigate him. See…