JEAN CRUMP V. USA, No. 18-55950 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAR 19 2019 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JEAN CRUMP, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-55950 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04760-RGK-PLA v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 12, 2019** Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Jean Crump appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment 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 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 * 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). F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Crump’s action because Crump failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476-78, 484-86 (1994) (the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional torts; a Bivens cause of action may not be brought against a government agency); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (elements of a § 1983 claim); Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (application of absolute prosecutorial immunity); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (application of judicial immunity). 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 18-55950

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.