Court Opinion

ID: 9363237
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-13 18:58:08.659979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:30.131745
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       DEC 21 2022
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RYAN ADAM DIXON,                                No. 21-35902

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00070-RSM

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ELIZABETH BERNS; MATTHEW SCOTT
GOGUEN; JIE LIANG GOGUEN,

                Defendants-Appellees,

and

YVONNE CURTIS; JENNI R.W.
HALLACK; CYNTHIA BUHR; STATE OF
WASHINGTON OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL; WASHINGTON
STATE BAR ASSOCIATION,

                Defendants.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Western District of Washington
                   Ricardo S. Martinez, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted December 8, 2022**

      *
             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).
Before:       WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

       Ryan Adam Dixon appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action related to state court proceedings that

terminated his parental rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We

review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri

v. Khalsa, 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed Dixon’s action because Dixon failed to

allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.

662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual

matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ashelman v. Pope, 793 F.2d 1072,

1075 (9th Cir. 1986) (judges are absolutely immune from damage liability for

judicial acts).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Dixon’s action

without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See

Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)

(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to

amend is proper where amendment would be futile).

       We reject as unsupported by the record Dixon’s contention that the district

court erred by failing to address various motions.

                                            2                                         21-35902
      Dixon’s motion for voluntary dismissal as to appellees Mathew Scott

Gogeun and Jie Liang Goguen (Docket Entry No. 17) is granted. This appeal is

dismissed as to appellees Mathew Scott Gogeun and Jie Liang Goguen only. See

Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). Dixon’s motion for proof of admission to practice (Docket

Entry No. 8) is denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                        3                                   21-35902