HUDSON v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND DBA (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Frank Edward Hudson I appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process violations arising from the denial of veterans’ preferences in hiring. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a 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 Hudson’s action because Hudson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible due process claim arising from the denial of a pre-deprivation hearing during the job application process, or the inadequacy of available post-deprivation remedies. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 536, 539, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (procedural due process claim requires that “claimant must either avail himself of the remedies guaranteed by state law or prove that the available remedies are inadequate”); Shinault v. Hawks, 782 F.3d 1053, 1057-58 (9th Cir. 2015) (court applies three-part balancing test set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S.Ct. 893, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976), to determine whether a pre-deprivation hearing is required); see also City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799, 106 S.Ct. 1571, 89 L.Ed.2d 806 (1986) (a Monell claim cannot survive in the absence of an underlying constitutional violation).

AFFIRMED.