Selene Fumie Stewart v. Department of Consumer Affairs of California

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SELENE FUMIE STEWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER
AFFAIRS OF CALIFORNIA;
CALIFORNIA BOARD OF VOCATIONAL
NURSES AND PSYCHIATRIC
TECHNICIANS; DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15315
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-07674-EMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward M. Chen, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2023**
Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Selene Fumie Stewart appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We
* 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
JUN 30 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-15315
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Stewart’s equal protection and
procedural due process claims because Stewart failed to allege facts sufficient to
state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (holding that 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 Furnace v. Sullivan, 705 F.3d 1021, 1030 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting
forth pleading requirements for equal protection claim); Portman v. County of
Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 904 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements of
procedural due process claim).
In her opening brief, Stewart fails to address the grounds for dismissal of her
claims that arose prior to September 30, 2019 and has therefore waived her
challenge to the district court’s determination that those claims are untimely. See
Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e
will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening
brief.”); Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not
supported by argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are waived).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-15315
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --