Teri Sahm v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 30, 2023
• Docket: 22-35490
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 30 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERI SAHM, No. 22-35490

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00165-JHC

v. MEMORANDUM* SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John H. Chun, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Teri Sahm appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her

action alleging various violations of federal law and the U.S. Constitution. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s

dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

* 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). 12(b)(6). Vega v. United States, 881 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th Cir. 2018). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sahm’s action because Sahm 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)); Somers v. Apple, Inc., 729 F.3d

953, 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (determining dismissal “under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper

when the complaint either (1) lacks a cognizable legal theory or (2) fails to allege

sufficient facts to support a cognizable legal theory”).

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).

We do not consider documents not filed with the district court. See United

States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not

presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 22-35490