Case Name: Terrence KINSELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve COOLEY, individually and as District Attorney for Los Angeles County; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-08
Citations: 369 F. App'x 867
Docket Number: No. 08-56941
Parties: Terrence KINSELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve COOLEY, individually and as District Attorney for Los Angeles County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
Terrence KINSELLA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steve COOLEY, individually and as District Attorney for Los Angeles County; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-56941.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 4, 2010.
Filed March 8, 2010.
Richard Hamlish, Law Offices of Richard Hamlish, Wesklake Village, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Millicent L. Rolon, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, GOULD and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We find no error in the district court's dismissal of Kinsella's claims against the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office defendants. "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice" to survive a motion to dismiss. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, — U.S. -, -, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Kinsella's complaint failed to show that the defendants were under a legal duty to file the abstract of judgment, as required to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Barry v. Fowler, 902 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir.1990); Johnson v. Duffy, 588 F.2d 740, 743 (9th Cir.1978).
With respect to Kinsella's claim against the Los Angeles Sheriffs Department defendants, Kinsella failed to raise the issue of tolling under California Government Code section 945.3 before the district court. While we have discretion to review the issue in the first instance, see United States v. Carlson, 900 F.2d 1346, 1349 (9th Cir.1990) (granting the appellate court discretion to review issues of pure law for the first time on appeal), we hold that the "particular circumstances of the case [do not] overcome our presumption against hearing new arguments" here, see Dream Palace v. County of Maricopa, 384 F.3d 990, 1005 (9th Cir.2004).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.