Lance Martin v. R. Berg ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LANCE R. MARTIN, No. 19-55255
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-01750-AJB-LL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
R. BERG, MTS Officer; M. RINI, MTS
Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Lance R. Martin appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that Metropolitan Transit System Officers
Berg and Rini falsely arrested Martin in violation of the Fourth Amendment. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
*
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).
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Vestar
Dev. II, LLC v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 249 F.3d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 2001).
The district court properly dismissed Martin’s action because Martin failed
to allege facts sufficient to show that Berg and Rini in fact arrested him. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a
complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim
to relief that is plausible on its face.’” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 570 (2007))); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir.
2012) (“A claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the
Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other
justification.”).
Because Martin denies bringing state-law false arrest claims against Berg
and Rini, we do not consider the district court’s finding that those claims are barred
by the California Government Code. We also do not consider any other matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Acosta-
Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1992) (concluding pro se appellant
abandoned issues not argued in his opening brief).
Martin’s motion to take judicial notice of court documents related to a fare
evasion citation issued after the district court’s order of dismissal is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-55255