Clayton Gunn, Jr. v. County of Butte

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: January 26, 2023
• Docket: 22-15008
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 26 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAYTON GUNN, JR., No. 22-15008

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01729-KJM-DMC

v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 18, 2023**

Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Clayton Gunn, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law

claims arising out of, among other things, an arrest, pretrial detention, and

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

* 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). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc.

v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Gunn’s federal claims because Gunn

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627

F.3d 338, 341–42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally

construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see

also Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 669 (9th Cir. 2021) (elements

of a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to provide adequate medical care);

Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073–76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en

banc) (requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.

Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 919 (9th

Cir. 2012) (en banc) (elements of a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983,

including a lack of probable cause); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th

Cir. 2003) (a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires plaintiff to

show intentional discrimination based upon his membership in a protected class);

Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (per

curiam) (a § 1983 claim for false arrest and imprisonment requires plaintiff to

show a lack of probable cause).

The district court properly dismissed Gunn’s state law claims because Gunn

failed to comply with California’s Government Claims Act (“GCA”) and failed to

2 22-15008 allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905,

911.2, 945.4; Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.

1995) (failure to allege compliance with the GCA subjects a state law claim against

public defendants to dismissal); Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (Cal. 2009)

(elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under California

law); Hawran v. Hixon, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88, 106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (elements

of defamation and false light claims under California law).

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).

AFFIRMED.

3 22-15008