Pechenuk v. County of Alameda

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 23, 2025
• Docket: 24-756
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MINDY PECHENUK, No. 24-756 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-04028-SK v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; TIM DUPUIS; CYNTHIA CORNEJO; NATE MILEY; KEITH CARSON; DAVID HAUBERT; SUSAN MURANISHI; DONNA ZIEGLER; SHIRLEY WEBER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Mindy Pechenuk appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing with

prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) action alleging that various state and county

officials violated her civil rights in connection with her efforts to observe ballot

procedures during the November 2022 election cycle. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to

dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Prodanova v. H.C.

Wainwright & Co., LLC, 993 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2021), and review for abuse

of discretion the district court’s decision to decline leave to amend, Benavidez v.

County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141–42 (9th Cir. 2021). We “may affirm the

dismissal upon any basis fairly supported by the record.” Burgert v. Lokelani

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000).

The district court properly dismissed the amended complaint because the

pleading does not allege specific facts to plausibly “support the existence of the

claimed conspiracy.” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th

Cir. 2004). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend.

See Rich v. Shrader, 823 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2016) (“ [W]hen the district court

has already afforded a plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, it has ‘wide

discretion in granting or refusing leave to amend after the first amendment.’”

(quoting Heay v. Phillips, 201 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1952))).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-756