Carina Conerly v. Sharif Tarpin

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 23 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CARINA CONERLY; JAMES CONERLY; No. 23-15297 MARILYN TILLMAN-CONERLY; M. T., a minor, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-01525-TLN-CKD

Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v.

SHARIF R. TARPIN, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 17, 2024**

Before: WARDLAW, BADE, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Carina Conerly, James Conerly, and Marilyn Tillman-Conerly appeal pro se

from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal claims.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Puri v. Khalsa,

844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017) (dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil

* 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). Procedure 12(b)(6)); Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.

1987) (sua sponte dismissal for failure to state a claim). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action because plaintiffs

failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, 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)).

We reject as meritless plaintiffs’ contentions that the district court was

biased against plaintiffs.

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).

Jones’s request for reimbursement of costs and fees, set forth in Jones’s

answering brief, is denied without prejudice to filing a bill of costs or a post-

judgment motion for fees.

All other pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-15297