ANDREW U.D. STRAW, Esquire v. United States of America

23-16039Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit28 mars 2024

Texte intégral

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW U.D. STRAW, Esquire,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 23-16039
D.C. No. 3:23-cv-02265-TLT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 26, 2024**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.
Andrew U.D. Straw appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action asserting his entitlement to a “merits decision” from the United States
Supreme Court. 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 28 U.S.C.
* 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
MAR 28 2024
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 23-16039
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Straw’s action because Straw 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)); see also U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2
(delegating authority to create regulations concerning the Supreme Court’s
appellate jurisdiction to Congress); 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (setting forth writs of
certiorari as the method through which a party may seek Supreme Court review).
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).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Poursuivez vos recherches dans ChatGPT ou Claude

Connectez Omnilex pour rechercher dans le corpus juridique depuis votre assistant IA.