N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT EUGENE B EAUREGAR D; SUSAN B EAUREGAR

D , Plaintiffs - Appe lla nts, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-35937 D.C . No. 3:12-c v-05945-R B L M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R o n a ld B . Le ighton, District Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 17, 2013 ** B e fore : GOODW IN, WALLAC E, a nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Euge ne an d Susa

n B e a ure ga rd a ppe a l pro se from

the distric t c ourt’ s judgm e nt dismissing the ir a c tion a lle ging viola tions of fe de ra l e nvironm e nta l la ws, am ong othe r things, in c o nne c tion with a wate r pipe l ine running through the ir



# FIL ED JAN 02 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).pa

rc e l of la nd. W e have jurisdic tion under 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w de novo. Barre t t v . Be lle que , 544 F.3d 1060, 1061 (9th C ir. 2008) (pe r c uriam ). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d the B e a

ure g ards’ a c tion be c a

use the B e a ure ga rds fa ile d to a lle g e suffic ie nt fa c ts to sta te a pla usiblec la im

for re lie f. Se e Ashc roft v . Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to a v o id dismissa l, “ a

c om p l a int m u st c onta in suffic ie nt fa c t

ua l m atte r, a c c e pte d a s true , to sta te a c la im to re lie f that is pla u sible on its fa c e ” (c ita

tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m arks om i tte d)); Omar v
. Se a-Land Se rv ., Inc . , 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th C ir. 1987) (distric t c ourt ha s a uthority unde r Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(b)(6) to dism i ss sua spontefor fa i lure to sta

te a c la im). M ore o ve r, to thee xte nt tha t the B e a ure ga rds se e k to ove rturn the sta te c o urt quie t titlede c ision, the ir c la im s a re ba rre d by the R ook e r-Fe ldman doc trine . Se eN oe l v . Hall , 341 F.3d 1148, 1164 (9th C ir. 2003) (“ If a fe de ra l pla intiff a sse rts a s a le ga l wrong a n a lle ge d ly

e rrone ous de c ision by

a sta t e c o urt, a nd se e ks re lie f from

a sta te c o urt judgm e nt ba se d

on tha t de c ision, R ook

e r-Fe ldman ba

rs subje c t m atte r jurisdic tion in fe d e ra l distric t c o urt.” ). W e do not c onside r whe the r the distric t c o urt should ha ve grante d the B e a ure ga rds’ re que st for a

pre lim ina

ry injunc tion be c a

use tha t issueha s “ m e rge d” with theB e a

ure g a rds’ substa

ntive a ppe a l re ga

rding the ir c la i m s. S

e eSEC v . Mount Ve rnon Me m’l Park

, 664 F.2d 1358, 1361-62 (9th C ir. 1982).
1 2 - 3 5 9 3 7

2W e do not c onside r m atte rs not spe c ific a lly an d distinc tly

ra i se d a nd a rgue d in the ope ning brie f. Se ePadge tt v . W right , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th C ir. 2009) (pe r c uriam ). The B e a ure ga rds’ m otion to re a ssign the ir c a se to a diffe re nt distric t c ourt judge on re m and, file d on Ja nua ry 31, 2013, is denie d

a s m o ot. De fe nda nts’ m o tion for judic ia l notic e , file d on April 29, 2013, is gra nte d. De fe nda nts’ m o tion to strike

the B e a ure ga rds’ num e rous c i tations of supple m e nta l a

uthoritie s unde r Fe d. R . App. P. 28(j), file d on July 1, 2013, is de nie d. Howe ve r, we do not c onside r any argum e nts ra i se d for the first tim e in the s e c ita tions of supplem e nta l a

uthoritie s. S

e e Paw lyk

v . W ood, 248 F.3d 815, 821 n.5 (9th C ir. 2001). TheB e a ure g ards’ re que st for re im burse m e nt for opposing de fe nda nts’ m o t ion is de nie d. The B e a ure ga rds’ m otion to disqua

lify de fe nda nts’ c o unse l, file d on Oc tobe r 4, 2013, is denie d. AFFIRM E D.

1 2 - 3 5 9 3 7 3