Craig Charles Peden v. PATTY MURRAY, Senator;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRAIG CHARLES PEDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
PATTY MURRAY, Senator; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35451
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00499-JLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Craig Charles Peden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
action arising from events related to a state court proceeding. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)
FILED
MAR 03 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 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

(order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Peden’s action because Peden failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed
liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief). Contrary to Peden’s contention that the district court improperly
dismissed the action for failure to file a timely amended complaint, the district
court reviewed the amended complaint on the merits.
To the extent that Peden sought a writ of mandamus, dismissal of the action
was proper because Peden failed to meet any of the requirements for mandamus
relief. See Johnson v. Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing
requirements for mandamus relief and noting that “[m]andamus is an extraordinary
remedy granted in the court’s sound discretion”).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
14-35451 2

-- 2 of 2 --