WAYNE SMITH V. AZIZ SHARIAT, No. 14-16772 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED DEC 21 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WAYNE D. SMITH, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 14-16772 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01830-TLN-AC MEMORANDUM* AZIZ SHARIAT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2016** Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. Wayne D. Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing with prejudice his action alleging federal and state law claims related to his employment and occupancy at the Camp Chaquita RV park. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s * 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). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Smith’s action because Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims, even after Smith was given opportunities to amend his complaint. 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); see also Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (setting forth elements of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983); Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506, 510 (9th Cir. 1996) (setting forth elements of a civil RICO claim); Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (Title VI requirements). We reject as without merit Smith’s contention that he was entitled to default judgment against defendants Gennai and Funk. AFFIRMED. 2 14-16772

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.