L.R. Bretz v. Helena Elderhousing, Inc. , 623 F. App'x 502 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
L. R. BRETZ, personal representative of No. 13-35028
Charles L. Caddell,
D.C. No. 6:12-cv-00048-DLC
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
HELENA ELDERHOUSING, INC.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
L. R. Bretz, personal representative of Charles L. Caddell, appeals pro se
from the district court’s judgment dismissing Caddell’s action alleging various
claims related to his residence in housing owned by Helena Elderhousing, Inc. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim, Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.
Contrary to Caddell’s contentions, the magistrate judge properly conducted a
preliminary screening of Caddell’s complaint as required by 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2), and properly dismissed Caddell’s federal claims because Caddell
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims. See 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)); see also West v. Atkins, 487
U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (“To state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the
violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and
must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under
color of state law.”); Saxton v. Hous. Auth. of City of Tacoma, 1 F.3d 881, 883-84
(9th Cir. 1993) (requirements for stating a claim under § 1983 alleging that public
housing officials failed to provide grievance hearings to public housing tenants).
Dismissal of Caddell’s state law claims was not an abuse of discretion in the
absence of any cognizable federal claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (a district
court may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims upon
2 13-35028
the dismissal of the federal claims); Tritchler v. County of Lake, 358 F.3d 1150,
1153 (9th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).
We reject Caddell’s argument that the magistrate judge was biased or
prejudiced.
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) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-35028