Maria Meza v. Bladimir Meza , 617 F. App'x 816 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 25 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARIA MEZA, No. 13-56146
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:12-cv-01777-GAF-
VBK
v.
BLADIMIR MEZA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants,
And
MICHAEL RILEY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2015**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Maria Meza appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
action alleging federal and state law violations arising out of juvenile and probate
court proceedings involving her daughter. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Meza’s 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985
claims, and Meza’s state law claims for fraud by intentional misrepresentation and
intentional infliction of emotional distress, because Meza failed to allege facts
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se
pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Naffe v. Frey, 789 F.3d
1030, 1035-36 (9th Cir. 2015) (outlining elements of § 1983 claim); Doe v.
Gangland Prods., Inc., 730 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir. 2013) (outlining elements of
claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intentional
misrepresentation under California law).
The district court properly dismissed Meza’s claim for abuse of process
because the alleged acts that constituted an abuse of process were permissible. See
Cal. Prob. Code § 1820(b) (“If the proposed conservatee is a minor, the petition
may be filed during his or her minority so that the appointment of a conservator
2 13-56146
may be made effective immediately upon the minor’s attaining the age of
majority.”); Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 16504.5(a) (permitting child welfare agency
to obtain criminal history information under certain circumstances).
The district court properly dismissed Meza’s claim for slander as barred by
the litigation privilege and for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. See Cal.
Civ. Code § 47(b); Graham-Sult v. Clainos, 756 F.3d 724, 741-42 (9th Cir. 2014)
(discussing California’s litigation privilege); Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42.
AFFIRMED.
3 13-56146