Ara V. Marutyan; v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARA V. MARUTYAN; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 18-16989
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01089-MMD-
GWF
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 18, 2019**
Before: FARRIS, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Ara V. Marutyan, Arthur Marutyan, and Diana Marutyan appeal pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
various constitutional claims in connection with the search and seizure of their
personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
* 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
SEP 25 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-16989
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Applied
Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019). We affirm
in part, vacate in part, and remand.
The district court properly dismissed the Marutyans’ Second Amendment
claim because the Marutyans failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible
claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se
pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also District of Columbia v.
Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626 (2008) (Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms
“[is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner
whatsoever and for whatever purpose”).
The district court properly dismissed the Marutyans’ Fourteenth Amendment
substantive due process claim because the Marutyans failed to allege facts
sufficient to show a deprivation of a fundamental right or liberty interest. See
Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. City of Hailey, 452 F.3d 1055, 1061 (9th Cir. 2006) (“To
establish a violation of substantive due process, a plaintiff must first show a
deprivation of some fundamental right or liberty interest that is deeply rooted in
this Nation’s history and tradition.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed the Marutyans’ Fourth Amendment

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-16989
claim because the Marutyans failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendant
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department lacked probable cause to search their
homes and dorm room and seize various items of personal property. See Illinois v.
Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 238 (1983) (probable cause requires a showing that there is a
“fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a
particular place”).
Because the district court concluded that the Marutyans sufficiently pled a
Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim in the original complaint and
the operative First Amended Complaint also pleads a procedural due process
claim, we vacate the judgment in part and remand to the district court so that this
action may proceed on the Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim
only.
We reject as meritless the Maruytans’ contention that the district court erred
in failing to address their request for a jury trial.
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --