eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2022-07

Stephen Yagman v. Robert Wunderlich ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 18 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN YAGMAN,                                 No. 21-56277
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-06093-SB-MRW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ROBERT WUNDERLICH; LILI BOSSE;
JOHN A. MIRISH; JULIAN A. GOLD;
LESTER J. FRIEDMAN; GEORGE
CHAVEZ; JEFF S. MUIR; HOWARD S.
FISHER; LAWRENCE WIENER; HUMA
AHMED; NOOSHIN MESHKATY;
SHARON IGNARRO; JAY SOLNIT;
RONALD SHALOWITZ; LISA K.
SCHWARTZ; DOES, Unknown Named
Defendants 1-20,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Stephen Yagman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action arising out of a parking citation. We have
jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson,
    640 F.3d 948
    , 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Yagman’s action because Yagman
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678, 681 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” and conclusory allegations are not entitled to be assumed true (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc.,
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would
be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc.,
    540 F.3d 1049
    , 1072 (9th
Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is
particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2                                      21-56277
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
3                                       21-56277