Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0435-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stephen JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-17006
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    OCTOBER 3, 2017
    Stephen Jackson, Fairfield, CA, pro se.
    Genail M. Anderson, Pite Duncan, LLP, Timothy R. Pomeroy, Aldridge Pite, LLP, San Diego, CA, Jon D. Ives, Esquire, Sev-erson & Werson APC, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Stephen Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging foreclosure-related claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d 772, 780 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action because Jackson failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations- sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also In re Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc., 754 F.3d at 784-85 (elements of a wrongful foreclosure claim); Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811, 124 Cal.Rptr.3d 256, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (2011) (elements of a breach of contract elaim).

We reject as meritless Jackson’s contention that .the district court erred by failing to consider his claim under Cal. Civ. Code § 2923.6(c).

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. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.