Donald Grant v. Annette Carter;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD GRANT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ANNETTE CARTER; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35290
D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00070-BMM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Montana state prisoner Donald Grant appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims regarding
his parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th
* 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).
FILED
NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35290
Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Grant’s action because Grant failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendants denied him his right to a parole
hearing. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro
se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a
plausible claim); see also Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (claim
is not ripe if it rests upon future events that may not occur).
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).
Grant’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --