eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2020-12

Ronald Van Hook v. State of Idaho ( 2020 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        DEC 9 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RONALD VAN HOOK,                                No. 19-35875
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00170-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF IDAHO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 2, 2020**
Before:      WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Van Hook appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging federal and state law claims arising
out of family court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    .
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
*
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).
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
    656 F.3d 1034
    , 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Van Hook’s action because Van Hook
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See 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); see,
e.g., West v. Atkins,
    487 U.S. 42
    , 48 (1988) (a § 1983 claim requires a violation of
a constitutional right “committed by a person acting under color of state law”);
Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman,
    465 U.S. 89
    , 100 (1984) (the
Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a non-consenting state); Garmon v. County
of Los Angeles,
    828 F.3d 837
    , 842 (9th Cir. 2016) (state prosecutors are
“absolutely immune from § 1983 actions when performing functions intimately
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)); Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc.,
    675 F.3d 1192
    , 1197
(9th Cir. 2012) (elements of claim under
    15 U.S.C. § 1
    ); Duspiva v. Fillmore,
    293 P.3d 651
    , 656 (Idaho 2013) (defining unfair competition under Idaho’s Consumer
Protection Act).
We reject as meritless Van Hook’s contentions that the district court did not
consider his evidence or other filings in the case.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
2                                     19-35875
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).
All pending requests and motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                                       19-35875