KOFOED v. ROSENBLUM (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Joseph Kofoed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Kofoed’s claims against defendant Rosenblum because Kofoed failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. Id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 681, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (conclusory allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (requirements for establishing supervisory liability under § 1983).

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).

Kofoed’s motion for correction of errors in the reply brief (Docket Entry No. 20) is granted. The Clerk shall file the notice of errata to the reply brief submitted at Docket Entry No. 20.

AFFIRMED.