CRUMP v. UNITED STATES (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Jean Crump appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. 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) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Crump’s action because Crump failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476-78, 484-86, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional torts; a Bivens cause of action may not be brought against a government agency); West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (elements of a § 1983 claim); Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (application of absolute prosecutorial immunity); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir. 2001) (application of judicial immunity).

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).

AFFIRMED.