OSCAR VALERO V. BANK OF AMERICA HOME LOANS, No. 13-16163 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUN 23 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OSCAR VALERO; BLANCA VALERO, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-16163 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01115-KJM-EFB MEMORANDUM* BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 14, 2016** Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Oscar and Blanca Valero appeal pro se from the district court’s order dismissing their action alleging federal and state claims related to the foreclosure * 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). Accordingly, Appellees’ request for oral argument, set forth in their answering brief, is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). of their home. 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). Ove v. Gwinn, 264 F.3d 817, 821 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the Valeros’ claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the Valeros failed to allege that the defendants acted under color of state law. See Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To establish § 1983 liability, a plaintiff must show both (1) deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) that the deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.”). The district court properly dismissed the Valeros’ claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 1341, 1343, and 1621, because there is no private civil right of action provided by those criminal statutes. See Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575 (1979) (holding that the “central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, whether expressly or by implication, a private cause of action.”); see also Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (§ 241 does not provide a private right of action). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Valeros leave to 2 13-16163 amend their federal claims because amendment would have been futile. See Flowers v. First Hawaiian Bank, 295 F.3d 966, 976 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth standard of review). The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the Valeros’ state law wrongful foreclosure claim because the Valeros failed to state a federal claim. See Ove, 264 F.3d at 826 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over related state-law claims once it has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). The Valeros’ request for judicial notice, set forth in their opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 13-16163
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
