Selomi M. Villalta v. ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SELOMI M. VILLALTA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17579
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-03021-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2015**
Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Selomi M. Villalta appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging that the government breached an immigration-related
class action settlement agreement (the “ABC agreement”). We have jurisdiction
* 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).
FILED
MAR 20 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 12-17579
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th
Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Villalta’s claims because the complaint
and attached exhibits failed to show that defendants breached the ABC agreement
or violated the United States Constitution. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se
pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a
plausible claim); Nat’l Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of
Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th Cir. 2000) (in determining whether a
complaint states a claim for relief, a court may consider facts contained in
documents attached to the complaint); Am. Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F.
Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (the ABC agreement).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Villalta’s motion for
leave to file an amended complaint because the proposed amendment was untimely
and would have been futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp. v. Dialysist W., Inc.,
465 F.3d 946, 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (setting forth standard of review and
grounds for denying leave to amend).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --