Case Name: Albert M. HOLGUIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REVIEW JOURNAL, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-06
Citations: 299 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 07-16512
Parties: Albert M. HOLGUIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REVIEW JOURNAL, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 299
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
Albert M. HOLGUIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. REVIEW JOURNAL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-16512.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Filed Nov. 6, 2008.
Albert M. Holguin, Indian Springs, NV, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Albert M. Holguin, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action, alleging slander, libel and defamation. We review de novo, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because Holguin's complaint did not allege facts to show that the defendant acted under color of state law or deprived Holguin of a constitutional or federal right. See Lopez v. Dept. of Health Servs., 939 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir.1991) (stating that to obtain relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must plead that the defendants acting under color of state law deprived plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution or federal statutes).
We do not consider Holguin's argument that he is a "limited public figure" for the purposes of stating a cognizable claim for defamation, because the argument is raised for the first time on appeal. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that, as a general rule, the court will not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.