Court Opinion

ID: 9557990
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:22.641556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:42.640532
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        AUG 21 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KENNETH SACHS,                                   No. 22-16437

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00008-DLR

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
RAYMOND E. BRANTON,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                             for the District of Arizona
                    Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted August 15, 2023**

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

      Kenneth Sachs appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of state child custody

proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm on

any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th

      *
             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).
Cir. 2008). We affirm.

       Dismissal of Sachs’s federal constitutional claim was proper because Sachs

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a 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)); Benavidez v. County of San

Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1146 (9th Cir. 2021) (setting forth requirements to state a

violation of a constitutional right to familial association through judicial

deception).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining supplemental

jurisdiction over Sachs’s remaining state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3)

(“The district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a

[state-law] claim . . . if . . . the district court has dismissed all claims over which it

has original jurisdiction.”).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further 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 leave to amend may be denied when amendment would

be futile).

       We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See

                                             2                                      22-16437
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      AFFIRMED.

                                         3                  22-16437