Case Name: Miko KERR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Camille BODEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-05
Citations: 668 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 14-55901
Parties: Miko KERR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Camille BODEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
Miko KERR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Camille BODEN; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-55901
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 26, 2016
Filed August 05, 2016
Miko Kerr, Pro Se
Cary K. Quan, Esquire, Attorney, Gregory Anthony Wille, Declues, Burkett & Thompson, LLP, Huntington Beach, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Miko Kerr appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Rhoades v. Avon Prods., Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Kerr's action because Kerr failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (though pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim); Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (a party's conclusory allegations need not be accepted as true); see also Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d 1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015) (requirements of a § 1983 claim); Sever v. Alaska Pulp Corp., 978 F.2d 1529, 1536 (9th Cir, 1992) (requirements of a § 1985(3) claim)
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. 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,