The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
16-17006•Stephen Jackson v. Clear Recon Corporation;
16-17006Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOct 3, 2017
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-17006
D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00968-TLN-AC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 26, 2017**
Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Stephen Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772,
* 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
OCT 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 16-17006
780 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action because Jackson
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any 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); see also In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754
F.3d at 784-85 (elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim); Oasis West Realty, LLC
v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (Cal. 2011) (elements of a breach of contract
claim).
We reject as meritless Jackson’s contention that the district court erred by
failing to consider his claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6(c).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.