Downing v. Ford

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 23-2058
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 9 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CURTIS L. DOWNING, No. 23-2058 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-00156-ART-BNW Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

Mr. AARON DARNELL FORD Esquire; STEVE SISOLAK; BRIAN SANDOVAL; Mr. ADAM PAUL LAXALT; STEVEN B. WOLFSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Anne R. Traum, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Curtis L. Downing appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action challenging the constitutionality of a 1951 Nevada statute

* 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). creating a statute revision commission. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Watison v.

Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Downing’s action because Downing

failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(ii) (requiring dismissal of a case where it “fails to state a claim on

which relief may be granted”); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.

2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must allege

facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 (“A civil

action is commenced by filing a complaint with the court.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.1

(setting forth requirements when a party challenges the constitutionality of a

statute).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Downing’s motion

for relief from judgment because Downing failed to demonstrate any basis for

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule

60(b)).

The motion (Docket Entry No. 18) for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-2058