VICTOR TAGLE V. CLARK COUNTY, No. 16-15556 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 27 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VICTOR MANUEL TAGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-15556 D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00881-JCM-PAL MEMORANDUM* CLARK COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Nevada state prisoner Victor Manuel Tagle appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action brought on behalf of his minor children for alleged violations of their various constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Johns v. County of * 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). San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Tagle’s § 1983 action because “a parent or guardian cannot bring an action on behalf of a minor child without retaining a lawyer.” Id. at 877. Because Tagle lacked standing, the district court properly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Tagle’s “Motion to Request Court’s/Case’s Records.” See Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 133 S. Ct. 1138, 1146 (2013) (standing is jurisdictional prerequisite). We reject as unsupported by the record Tagle’s contentions that the district court discriminated against him based on his financial status and was biased in favor of defendants. 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) (per curiam). Tagle’s motions, filed on December 20, 2016, are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 16-15556

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.