Home/Ninth Circuit/Steven Walker, I v. USA

Steven Walker, I v. USA

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedMarch 17, 2026
Docket23-55525
StatusUnpublished

This text of Steven Walker, I v. USA (Steven Walker, I v. USA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Steven Walker, I v. USA, (9th Cir. 2026).

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 17 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN ERIC WALKER, No. 23-55525

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00031-DMS-AGS

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF CALIFORNIA; DOES, 1 through 100,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

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

Steven Eric Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing

his constitutional challenge to firearms restrictions for persons convicted of a

felony. 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

* 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). (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Walker’s action because Walker 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)); see also New York State

Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 24 (2022) (setting forth the standard

for evaluating Second Amendment claims); United States v. Duarte, 137 F.4th 743,

761 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc) (explaining that the Second Amendment permits

“permanent and categorical disarmament of felons”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Walker’s motions to

vacate dismissal and judgment because Walker failed to set forth any basis for

relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for

reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60).

Walker’s request to exceed the page limit in his fourth motion to lift

abeyance (Docket Entry No. 31) is granted. All other pending motions and

requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-55525

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

Related

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court, 2009)
Raymond Watison v. Mary Carter
668 F.3d 1108 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen
597 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 2022)
United States v. Steven Duarte
137 F.4th 743 (Ninth Circuit, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Steven Walker, I v. USA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-walker-i-v-usa-ca9-2026.