Court Opinion

ID: 9955592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 20:01:35.08106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:07.121732
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAR 28 2024
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW U.D. STRAW, Esquire,                      No. 23-16039

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:23-cv-02265-TLT

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Northern District of California
                   Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Andrew U.D. Straw appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

his action asserting his entitlement to a “merits decision” from the United States

Supreme Court. 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 28 U.S.C.

      *
             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).
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We

affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Straw’s action because Straw 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)); see also U.S. Const. Art. III, § 2

(delegating authority to create regulations concerning the Supreme Court’s

appellate jurisdiction to Congress); 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) (setting forth writs of

certiorari as the method through which a party may seek Supreme Court review).

      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).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                         23-16039