Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Raul MENDEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF BOISE, a municipal corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
MEMORANDUM **
Raul Mendez appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of a dispute regarding sewer fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Mendez's procedural due process claim because Mendez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he was denied any process to which he was entitled prior to being charged sewer fees. See Hotel & Motel Ass'n of Oakland v. City of Oakland, 344 F.3d 959, 968-70 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that “laws of general applicability affecting a broad geographic area” ordinarily do not implicate individual procedural due process concerns).
The district court properly dismissed Mendez's Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) claim because, even assuming the sewer fees qualified as a “debt” under the FDCPA, Mendez failed to allege facts sufficient to show that any defendant was a “debt collector” within the meaning of the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6) (defining “debt collector” under the FDCPA as “any person ․ who regularly collects or attempts to collect ․ debts owed ․ another”); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mendez leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and stating that leave to amend may be denied where amendment would be futile).
We reject as meritless Mendez's contention that the district court failed to liberally construe his complaint.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
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.
Docket No: No. 20-35474
Decided: April 23, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)