MIKO KERR V. CAMILLE BODEN, No. 14-55901 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT AUG 05 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS MIKO KERR, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 14-55901 D.C. No. 8:13-cv-00256-JLS-JPR MEMORANDUM* v. CAMILLE BODEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 26, 2016** Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Miko Kerr appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. * 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). 2007). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Kerr’s action because Kerr failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (a party’s conclusory allegations need not be accepted as true); see also Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirements of a § 1983 claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir. 1992) (requirements of a § 1985(3) claim) We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 14-55901

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.