Case Name: Stephen JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 435
Docket Number: No. 16-17006
Parties: Stephen JACKSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CLEAR RECON CORPORATION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 435–436

Head Matter:
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).

Opinion:
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.