DONALD GRANT V. ANNETTE CARTER, No. 21-35290 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DONALD GRANT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-35290 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 6:20-cv-00070-BMM MEMORANDUM* ANNETTE CARTER; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Montana state prisoner Donald Grant appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims regarding his parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th * 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). Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Grant’s action because Grant failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants denied him his right to a parole hearing. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); see also Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998) (claim is not ripe if it rests upon future events that may not occur). 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 appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Grant’s request for judicial notice, set forth in the opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-35290

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.