JOSEPH KOFOED V. ELLEN ROSENBLUM, No. 18-35656 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 28 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH KOFOED, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-35656 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01342-SB v. MEMORANDUM* ELLEN ROSENBLUM, State of Oregon Attorney General; KINDRA McKILLIP, Legal Secretary to the Tillamook County Circuit Court Trial Court Administrator, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 21, 2019** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges. Joseph Kofoed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal * 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). 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 Kofoed’s claims against defendant Rosenblum because Kofoed failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. Id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681 (2009) (conclusory allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983). 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). Kofoed’s motion for correction of errors in the reply brief (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted. The Clerk shall file the notice of errata to the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 20. AFFIRMED. 2 18-35656

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.