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

Nathan Byerly v. Ada County ( 2022 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 20 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATHAN B. BYERLY,                               No. 20-35046
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00229-DCN
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADA COUNTY; ADA COUNTY COURT
CLERK; ADA COUNTY PUBLIC
DEFENDER; ADA COUNTY COURT;
STATE OF IDAHO FOURTH DISTRICT;
ADA COUNTY PROSECUTOR OFFICE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2022**
Before:      SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Nathan B. Byerly appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging denial of access to the
*
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).
courts. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo the
district court’s dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes,
    213 F.3d 443
    , 447 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Byerly’s action because Byerly failed
to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Lewis v. Casey,
    518 U.S. 343
    , 349-53 (1996) (elements of an access-to-courts claim); Castro v. County of
Los Angeles,
    833 F.3d 1060
    , 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing
requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social
Services,
    436 U.S. 658
     (1978)); Hebbe v. Pliler,
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege
facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
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.
2                                     20-35046