Miko Kerr v. Camille Boden;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIKO KERR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CAMILLE BODEN; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-55901
D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00256-JLS-JPR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Miko Kerr appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir.
FILED
AUG 05 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kerr’s action because Kerr failed to
allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338,
341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff
must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v.
Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (a party’s conclusory allegations need
not be accepted as true); see also Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir.
2015) (requirements of a § 1983 claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d
1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (requirements of a § 1985(3) claim)
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
14-55901 2

-- 2 of 2 --