Derek Todd v. ANGELA ACKLEY, Child Protective Services, Tehama County; CRYSTAL ARCHER

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEREK TODD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANGELA ACKLEY, Child Protective
Services, Tehama County; CRYSTAL
ARCHER,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16529
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00470-JAM-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Derek Todd appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Tehema County Child Protective Services
employee Ackley violated his and his son’s constitutional rights by declining to
FILED
JAN 02 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

bring neglect charges against his son’s mother. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
(order). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v.
Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Todd’s claims on behalf of his now-
adult son because Todd lacks standing to bring those claims. See Warth v. Seldin,
422 U.S. 490, 499 (1975) (plaintiff has standing “only when the plaintiff himself
has suffered some threatened or actual injury resulting from the putatively illegal
action” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court properly dismissed Todd’s substantive due process claim
because Todd failed to allege facts that “shock the conscience or offend the
community’s sense of fair play and decency.” Rosenbaum v. Washoe County, 663
F.3d 1071, 1079 (9th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted) (explaining requirements for a substantive due process claim based on
right to family integrity).
Dismissal of Todd’s equal protection claim was proper because Todd failed
to allege that Ackley acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against him
12-16529 2

-- 2 of 3 --

based on his membership in a protected class. See Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194
(explaining requirements for an equal protection claim).
AFFIRMED.
12-16529 3

-- 3 of 3 --