MEMORANDUM **
Appellant John Lawrence Ervin appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing for failure to state a claim his fourth amended complaint alleging civil rights violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Curry v. Yelp, Inc., 875 F.3d 1219, 1224 (9th Cir. 2017), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ervins procedural due process claims because Ervin received notice and multiple hearings before defendant County placed Ervins name on the states Child Abuse Index. See Endy v. County of Los Angeles, 975 F.3d 757, 760 (9th Cir. 2020). We do not consider Ervins argument, newly made on appeal, that the County did not have probable cause to investigate Ervin. In re Mercury Interactive Corp. Sec. Litig., 618 F.3d 988, 992 (9th Cir. 2010).
Dismissal of Ervins due process claims in connection with his listing in the Child Welfare Services Case Management System was proper because there is no stigma associated with an “unfounded” listing like the one Ervin alleged in his complaint. Endy, 975 F.3d at 765-68.
The district court properly dismissed Ervins substantive due process claims because Ervin did not plausibly allege deprivation of a protected liberty interest. See Capp v. County of San Diego, 940 F.3d 1046, 1060 (9th Cir. 2019).
The district court properly dismissed Ervins First Amendment retaliation claims because Ervin did not plausibly allege that any retaliatory animus was the “but for” cause of his listing on the CACI. See Nieves v. Bartlett, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S.Ct. 1715, 1722, 204 L.Ed.2d 1 (2019).
The district court properly dismissed Ervins equal protection claim because Ervin did not plausibly allege that the County treated Ervin differently from those similarly situated without any rational basis. See, e.g., Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 564, 120 S.Ct. 1073, 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 (2000).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend this fourth amended complaint, where Ervin sought not to allege new facts but instead only new theories of legal liability. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845 (9th Cir. 1995).
We affirm the district courts judicial notice rulings because any error by the district court was harmless.
Ervins motions for oral argument (Docket Entry No. 22) and for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 30) are denied.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations made for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.