PRAVEEN KHURANA V. STATE OF IDAHO, ET AL, No. 20-35964 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 14 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT PRAVEEN KHURANA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35964 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00553-DCN MEMORANDUM* STATE OF IDAHO; DOUGLAS FLEENOR; ROBERT RINARD; DAPHNE HUANG; RENU VERMA, and John Doe (Wife and Husband); VIMAL VERMA, and Jane Doe (Husband and wife); KAMAL VERMA, and Jane Doe (Husband and wife); NEELAM KAKKAR, Wife and Husband; ARUN KAKKAR, Wife and Husband; DOREEN SULTMA, and spouse of Doreen Sulyma, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. * 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). Praveen Khurana appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various claims related to child support payments. 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). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Khurana’s action because Khurana failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). To the extent that Khurana contends that the district court was biased against him or failed to review his amended complaints, we reject his contentions as unsupported by the record. 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 20-35964

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.