Terry Hardage v. Walt Gullett , 585 F. App'x 659 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                           FILED
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT                            NOV 21 2014
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    TERRY HARDAGE,                                   No. 12-35149
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 6:12-cv-00221-HO
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    WALT GULLETT; KRISTI ANDERSON;
    JENNIFER DOERNER; MARY
    MATTHEWS; THE CITIZENS REVIEW
    BOARD; DAN MOSELEY; RYAN
    LOOSLI,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Oregon
    Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 14, 2014**
    San Francisco, California
    Before:        HUG, FARRIS, and CANBY, Circuit Judges.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    Terry Hardage appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
    his action for alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
    U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 
    152 F.3d 1193
    , 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
    We we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside
    Healthcare Sys., LP, 
    534 F.3d 1116
    , 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.1
    On appeal, Hardage maintains that, contrary to the district court’s ruling, he
    is not challenging the results of the state dependency hearing, and he argues that
    the dependency hearing has no bearing on his § 1983 claim. Instead, he contends,
    the issue is whether the initial removal of his children into protective custody was
    illegal, and he argues that the juvenile court did not consider this issue in the
    dependency hearing. However, Hardage’s complaint fails to state such a claim, or
    to allege any connection between the defendants and the initial removal of
    Hardage’s children. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    
    556 U.S. 662
    , 677-80 (2009); United Steelworkers of America v. Phelps Dodge
    Corp., 
    865 F.2d 1539
    , 1540-41 (9th Cir. 1989) (en banc); Karim–Panahi v. L.A.
    Police Dep’t, 
    839 F.2d 621
    , 626 (9th Cir. 1988).
    1
    Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history
    underlying this appeal, we do not recount them here.
    2
    AFFIRMED.
    3