NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SON HONG,
Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. MILDRED GARCIA , et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 21

- 55019
D.C. No. 8:19

- cv - 00086

- RGK

- JC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2022 * * San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE , FERNANDEZ , and SILVERMAN , Circuit Judges.
Son H ong ap peals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging various federal constitutional and statutory claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6 ), see Mudpie, Inc. v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of

* 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). 

# FILED

JUN 23 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

Am. , 15 F.4th 885, 889 (9th Cir. 2021) , and for abuse of discretion the denial of leave
to amend , see Drew v. Equifax Info. Servs. , 690 F.3d 1100, 1105

– 06 (9th Cir. 2012)

. W e affirm. The district court properly dismissed Hong’s action because Hong failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. 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 Shooter v. Arizona , 4 F.4th 955 , 960 (9th Cir. 2021) (requirements for equal protection claim); Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Co rp. , 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. , 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (elements of Title VI claim);
Schwake v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents , 967 F.3d 940, 946 (9th Cir. 2020) (elements of Title IX claim). The operative complaint does not contain sufficient plausible, non

conclusory allegations that “raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 5 44, 555 (2007) ; see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”)

. Hong voluntarily dismissed his breach of contract claim

. S ee Ho v.
ReconTrust Co. , NA , 858 F.3d 568, 577 (9th Cir. 2017) ( claims dismissed without prejudice and not repleaded are not preserved for appeal )

.3

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hong’s action
without leave to amend because further amendment would have been futile. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep ’ t of Corr. & Rehab. , 707 F.3d 1114, 1130 (9th Cir. 2013) ; Mai v. United States , 952 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2020) ( dismissal is affirmed when a “ district court determines that further amendment would be futile ” and “ it is clear, upon de novo review, that the complaint could not be saved by any amendment” (citation omitted)). Moreover, Hong was given a previous opportunity
to amend his complaint

. S ee Chodos v. W. Publ’g Co. , 292 F.3d 9 92, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (a district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is “ particularly broad ” when it has already granted leave to amend)

. Despite “spen[ding] nearly one hundred additional pages,” Hong ’s prior amendment failed to cure the deficie ncies identified by the district court

. S ee Akhtar v. Mesa , 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012) ; see also Knapp v. Hogan , 738 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir. 2013) (“When a litigant knowingly and repeatedly refuses to conform his pleadings to the requirements of the Federal Rules, it is reasonable to conclude that the litigant simply

cannot state a claim.”).
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) ; Acosta

- Huerta v. Estelle , 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (issues not supported by argument in pro se appellant ’ s opening brief are deemed abandoned ).4

AFFIRMED.