Ronald VAN HOOK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of IDAHO; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: December 09, 2020
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Ronald Van Hook, Pro Se Robert A. Berry, Attorney, AGID - Idaho Office of the Attorney General, Boise, ID, for Defendants - Appellees State of Idaho, Idaho Bar Association Yvonne A. Dunbar, Attorney, Anderson Julian & Hull LLP, Boise, ID, for Defendants - Appellees Steven Fisher, Fisher Law Firm Howard Aye Belodoff, Esquire, Attorney, Martin Corey Hendrickson, Attorney, Idaho Legal Aid Services, Inc., Boise, ID, for Defendants - Appellees Mary Grant, Kimberli Stretch, Idaho Legal Aid Bryan Nickels, Boise, ID, Keely Elizabeth Duke, Attorney, Duke Scanlan & Hall, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendants - Appellees Virginia Bond, Bond Law Chartered Michael John Kane, Attorney, Michael Kane & Associates, PLLC, Boise, ID, for Defendants - Appellees Christopher D. Boyd, Adams County Idaho
Ronald Van Hook appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of family court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Van Hook's action because Van Hook failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see, e.g., West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108 S.Ct. 2250, 101 L.Ed.2d 40 (1988) (a § 1983 claim requires a violation of a constitutional right “committed by a person acting under color of state law”); Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984) (the Eleventh Amendment bars suit against a non-consenting state); Garmon v. County of Los Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842 (9th Cir. 2016) (state prosecutors are “absolutely immune from § 1983 actions when performing functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Brantley v. NBC Universal, Inc., 675 F.3d 1192, 1197 (9th Cir. 2012) (elements of claim under 15 U.S.C. § 1); Duspiva v. Fillmore, 154 Idaho 27, 293 P.3d 651, 656 (2013) (defining unfair competition under Idaho's Consumer Protection Act).
We reject as meritless Van Hook's contentions that the district court did not consider his evidence or other filings in the case.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests and motions are denied.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.