Jesus Torres v. San Francisco Human Services A ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 17 2021
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JESUS TORRES,                                   No. 19-17583
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 4:18-cv-07415-KAW
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES
    AGENCY; TRENT RHORER, Executive
    Director of HSA, in his official capacity,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of California
    Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
    Submitted December 14, 2021***
    Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
    Jesus Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c).
    ***
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    connection with the discontinuation of his public benefits. We have jurisdiction
    under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s
    decision to dismiss without leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home
    Loans, Inc., 
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Torres’s action
    without further leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See 
    id.
    (dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); see
    also Mathews v. Eldridge, 
    424 U.S. 319
    , 333 (1976) (due process requires notice
    and an opportunity to be heard); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 
    292 F.3d 992
    , 1003
    (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend
    is “particularly broad” when it has previously granted leave to amend).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                    19-17583