BRIESA MCCLAIN V. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, No. 20-55544 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED APR 27 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIESA McCLAIN; JOAQUIN McCLAIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; et al., U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-55544 D.C. Nos. 5:18-cv-01648-CJC-PLA 5:17-cv-01178-CJC-PLA MEMORANDUM* Defendants-Appellees, and JORDAN BERNAL; et al., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 20, 2021** Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges. Briesa and Joaquin McClain appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment * 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). dismissing their consolidated action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d 1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed the McClains’s action because the McClains failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims, and because the complaint failed to comport with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1) (a pleading that states a claim for relief must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct); 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)). The district court properly denied Briesa McClain’s motion for partial summary judgment as premature and moot. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the McClain’s request for judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (outlining the requirements for judicial notice). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 2 20-55544 appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 20-55544

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.