FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 10 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK STEVEN PRICE, No. 06-15071
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-04-02241-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM *
A. BJELLAND; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
MARK STEVEN PRICE, No. 06-15073
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. CV-05-02048-JAT
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
JS/Research
Submitted February 16, 2010 **
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Arizona state prisoner Mark Steven Price
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments dismissing his two actions
alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A);
Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2005) (interpretation of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g)). We affirm in part and dismiss in part.
In Appeal No. 06-15071, the district court properly dismissed Price’s due
process claim challenging the deprivation of property and the disciplinary
proceedings against him, because he was afforded the procedural protections set
forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70 (1974).
In Appeal No. 06-15073, the district court properly dismissed Price’s equal
protection and due process claims because there is a rational basis for the
government’s fee requirement for an application to register intellectual property.
See Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1999) (applying rational
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
JS/Research 2 06-15071
basis test to equal protection challenge where there was no suspect class or
fundamental interest at stake, and stating that indigent persons are not a suspect
class); Kim v. United States, 121 F.3d 1269, 1273 (9th Cir. 1997) (stating that
rational basis test applies to substantive due process challenge where no
fundamental right is implicated).
The district court properly concluded that its dismissals in these actions
constitute strikes because the dismissal of a prisoner action for failure to state a
claim constitutes a strike regardless of whether the prisoner is in forma pauperis.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Rodriguez, 169 F.3d at 1178.
Price’s challenge to the district court’s determination that he had three
strikes and thus could not proceed in forma pauperis in these actions is moot
because he paid the full filing fees. See Lipscomb v. Madigan, 221 F.2d 798 (9th
Cir. 1955) (per curiam).
Price’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Appeal No. 06-15071: AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
Appeal No. 06-15073: AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
JS/Research 3 06-15071