STEPHEN JACKSON V. CLEAR RECON CORP., No. 16-17006 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT STEPHEN JACKSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-17006 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00968-TLN-AC v. MEMORANDUM* CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Stephen Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging foreclosure-related claims. 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). In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, * 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). 780 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action because Jackson failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (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 In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d at 784-85 (elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim); Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (Cal. 2011) (elements of a breach of contract claim). We reject as meritless Jackson’s contention that the district court erred by failing to consider his claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6(c). 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). AFFIRMED. 2 16-17006

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.