BOBBY KINDER, JR. V. MERCED COUNTY, No. 17-15158 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 15 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BOBBY LEE KINDER, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-15158 D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01311-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* MERCED COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Michael J. Seng, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted August 9, 2017*** Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Bobby Lee Kinder, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Kinder consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Kinder’s action because Kinder failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. 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 See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (requirement for establishing municipal liability claim); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining personal participation requirement); Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (elements of § 1983 action). To the extent Kinder requests copies of his medical records, copies of a police report, and the appointment of counsel in his opening brief, Kinder’s requests are denied. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 17-15158

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.