Frank Edward Hudson I, an individual; and all others similarly situated v. HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND, DBA Home Forward, a public, municipal corporation;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK EDWARD HUDSON I, an
individual; and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF PORTLAND,
DBA Home Forward, a public, municipal
corporation; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-35400
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-02364-BR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, PAEZ, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
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.
* 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
APR 16 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-35400
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 (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 (1976), to determine whether a pre-deprivation hearing is
required); see also City of Los Angeles v. Heller, 475 U.S. 796, 799 (1986) (a
Monell claim cannot survive in the absence of an underlying constitutional
violation).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --