Ryan Adam Dixon v. Elizabeth Berns; Matthew Scott Goguen; Jie Liang Goguen

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RYAN ADAM DIXON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH BERNS; MATTHEW SCOTT
GOGUEN; JIE LIANG GOGUEN,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
YVONNE CURTIS; JENNI R.W.
HALLACK; CYNTHIA BUHR; STATE OF
WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL; WASHINGTON
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,
Defendants.
No. 21-35902
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00070-RSM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
* 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
DEC 21 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-35902
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Ryan Adam Dixon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to state court proceedings that
terminated his parental rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri
v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Dixon’s action because Dixon failed to
allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual
matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,
1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (judges are absolutely immune from damage liability for
judicial acts).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Dixon’s action
without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to
amend is proper where amendment would be futile).
We reject as unsupported by the record Dixon’s contention that the district
court erred by failing to address various motions.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-35902
Dixon’s motion for voluntary dismissal as to appellees Mathew Scott
Gogeun and Jie Liang Goguen (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted. This appeal is
dismissed as to appellees Mathew Scott Gogeun and Jie Liang Goguen only. See
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Dixon’s motion for proof of admission to practice (Docket
Entry No. 8) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --