Court Opinion

ID: 9785044
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:30.785418+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:29.845752
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERI SAHM,                                      No. 22-35490

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00165-JHC

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Western District of Washington
                     John H. Chun, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Teri Sahm appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

action alleging various violations of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

      *
             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).
12(b)(6). Vega v. United States, 881 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Sahm’s action because Sahm 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)); Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d

953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (determining dismissal “under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper

when the complaint either (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege

sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory”).

      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).

      We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United

States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not

presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                         22-35490