Martin Ventress v. David Kilgore ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 25 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARTIN VENTRESS, No. 21-55433
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:20-cv-02192-MWF-
MRW
v.
DIRECTOR DAVID KILGORE, California MEMORANDUM*
Department of Child Support Services; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 19, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Martin Ventress appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims concerning child support payments.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district
court’s sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar
*
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).
v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Ventress’s action sua sponte after
giving Ventress notice of its intention to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and allowing
Ventress to submit a written response and amended complaint. See Wong v. Bell,
642 F.2d 359, 361-62 (9th Cir. 1981) (district court has authority under Rule
12(b)(6) to dismiss sua sponte for failure to state a claim); see also Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Ventress’s motions for judicial notice (Docket Entry Nos. 6 and 7) are
denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-55433