Teri Sahm v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TERI SAHM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-35490
D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00165-JHC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
John H. Chun, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Teri Sahm appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
action alleging various violations of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
* 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
AUG 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-35490
12(b)(6). Vega v. United States, 881 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sahm’s action because Sahm 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)); Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d
953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (determining dismissal “under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper
when the complaint either (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege
sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory”).
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).
We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United
States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --