Court Opinion

ID: 9406543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-01 00:01:09.305678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:31.355284
License: Public Domain

FILED
                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION
                                                                          JUN 30 2023
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TANIELA F. KIVALU,                              No. 21-16811

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00379-SPL

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY;
TRUSTEE BOARD MEMBERS OF
NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY;
MICHAEL CAHILL; SAM BARSTOSKY;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
UNITED STATES CREDIT BUREAUS;
UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as Others,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted June 26, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

      Taniela F. Kivalu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

      *
             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).
dismissing his action alleging federal disability discrimination claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.

2012). We affirm.

       The district court properly dismissed Kivalu’s action because Kivalu failed

to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler,

627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed

liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible

claim for relief).

       We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

       All pending requests are denied.

       AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                     21-16811