Julie Fontaine v. Bank of America, N.A.

696 F. App'x 256

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Julie Elice Fontaine appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging a Truth in Lending Act claim and other claims arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)); Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Fontaine’s action because Fontaine failed to include a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that [she] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (pleading must do more than offer-labels and conclusions); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for each wrong).

We reject as unsupported by the record Fontaine’s contention that the district court did not provide her with adequate instructions on how to cure the deficiencies in her complaint.

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 are denied.

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.