Langarica v. Inland Valley Humane Society

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided June 26, 2026·No. 25-3592·Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAYRA LANGARICA, No. 25-3592 D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00804-JFW-BFM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 22, 2026**

Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Mayra Langarica appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the impoundment of her dogs.

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

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th

* 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). Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Langarica’s action because Langarica

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)); Chaudhry v. Aragon, 68

F.4th 1161, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2023) (setting forth the elements of § 1983 actions

and explaining the requirements to establish causation).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Langarica’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 6) is

denied as unnecessary because Langarica’s in forma pauperis status from the

district court carries over to this appeal. All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3592

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Langarica v. Inland Valley Humane Society, (9th Cir. 2026).

Langarica v. Inland Valley Humane Society (Langarica v. Inland Valley Humane Society) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter
668 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Padgett v. Wright
587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)
Pervaiz Chaudhry v. Tomas Aragon
68 F.4th 1161 (Ninth Circuit, 2023)