Walter Tripp v. Connie S. Bisbee;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER TRIPP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONNIE S. BISBEE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-15089
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00030-RCJ-VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Robert Clive Jones, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Walter Tripp, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants
violated his equal protection rights in connection with parole hearings. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to
* 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).
FILED
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-15089
state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118
(9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Tripp’s action because Tripp failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that he was “intentionally treated differently from
others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in
treatment.” Vill. of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564 (2000) (per curiam)
(elements of “class of one” equal protection claim); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief).
Tripp’s request that this court order parole and probation to make Tripp’s
parole file available, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --