FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 7 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CECIL DUDGEON, No. 09-36123
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05200-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
HENRY RICHARDS, Superintendent; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2011 **
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Cecil Dudgeon, a Washington civil detainee, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
committed constitutional and state-law violations in responding to his public
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
disclosure request. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo. Nelson v. Heiss, 271 F.3d 891, 893 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dudgeon’s claim for denial of access to
courts because Dudgeon failed to allege facts demonstrating that he suffered an
actual injury. See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 348-49 (1996) (requiring actual
injury, like prejudice to contemplated or existing litigation, for claim of denial of
access to courts).
The district court properly dismissed Dudgeon’s due process claim because
Dudgeon failed to allege the deprivation of a constitutional or state-created liberty
or property interest. See Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1085 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Procedural due process claims require [ ] a deprivation of a constitutionally
protected liberty or property interest[.]”); cf. Sappenfield v. Dep’t of Corr., 110
P.3d 808, 811-12 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005) (prison policy, requiring an inmate either
to pay for and obtain by mail copies of department records or to send a personal
representative to inspect the records, was reasonable and did not violate
Washington’s Public Records Act).
The district court properly dismissed Dudgeon’s equal protection claim
because Dudgeon failed to allege facts establishing an intent or purpose to
2 09-36123
discriminate against him based upon his membership in a protected class. See
Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005).
The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Dudgeon’s state-law claims after dismissing his federal claims without leave
to amend. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). We construe the dismissal of the state
claims as being without prejudice. See Gini v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 40
F.3d 1041, 1046 (9th Cir. 1994).
Dudgeon’s remaining contentions, including those concerning retroactivity,
are unpersuasive.
Jessica L. Greenwald’s motion to withdraw as defendants’ counsel is
granted.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-36123