DHINGRA v. UNITED STATES (2021)

MEMORANDUM ***

Rakesh Dhingra appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging constitutional violations arising from the application of the International Megan's Law (“IML”). 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 Dhingra's action because Dhingra failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) (“[A] law that is neutral and of general applicability need not be justified by a compelling governmental interest even if the law has the incidental effect of burdening a particular religious practice.”); United States v. Juvenile Male, 670 F.3d 999, 1012-13 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the requirements for substantive and procedural due process claims and concluding that individuals convicted of serious sex offenses do not have a fundamental right to be free from sex offender registration requirements).

The district court correctly found that to the extent Dhingra's claims rest on the implied invalidity of his criminal conviction, they are Heck-barred. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (if “a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply the invalidity of his conviction or sentence ․ the complaint must be dismissed unless the plaintiff can demonstrate that the conviction or sentence has already been invalidated”).

We reject as without merit Dhingra's contentions regarding Doe v. Kerry, No. 16-cv-0654-PJH, 2016 WL 5339804 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016).

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).

Dhingra's request to stay this appeal, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.