eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 2021-05

Kurt Morozko v. Shoshone County ( 2021 )


Menu:
 
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAY 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KURT A. MOROZKO,                                No. 20-35622
Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00512-BLW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SHOSHONE COUNTY, Idaho; CITY OF
OSBURN, Idaho,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
B. Lynn Winmill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before:      CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Kurt A. Morozko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his
    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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman,
    680 F.3d 1113
    ,
1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Morozko’s federal claims because
Morozko failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional
violation as a result of an official policy or custom. See Castro v. County of Los
Angeles,
    833 F.3d 1060
    , 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing
requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social
Services,
    436 U.S. 658
     (1978)).
The district court properly dismissed Morozko’s claims for violation of
Idaho’s criminal statutes because criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a
private right of action. See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of
Denver, N.A.,
    511 U.S. 164
    , 190 (1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the 20-page limit
for pro se prisoner complaints in civil rights cases, set forth in Idaho General Order
No. 342. See Leong v. Potter,
    347 F.3d 1117
    , 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing for
abuse of discretion a district court’s decision to enforce its procedural rules).
We reject as meritless Morozko’s contention that the screening requirements
of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are unconstitutional.
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
2                                        20-35622
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright,
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Morozko’s motion for an order to show cause is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3                               20-35622