Archibald Cunningham v. Kevin Singer , 667 F. App'x 961 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ARCHIBALD CUNNINGHAM, No. 15-15166
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-03250-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KEVIN SINGER, Court-appointed
receiver; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 26, 2016**
Before: SCHROEDER, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Archibald Cunningham, an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law
claims arising out of the acts of a state court-appointed receiver. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Kahle v. Gonzales, 487 F.3d 697, 699 (9th Cir.
2007), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Cunningham’s action because
Cunningham failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. 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[.]”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Cunningham a
vexatious litigant and entering a pre-filing order against Cunningham after
providing him with notice and an opportunity to be heard, developing an adequate
record for review, making substantive findings regarding his frivolous litigation
history, and tailoring the restriction narrowly. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty
Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056-61 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review
and discussing factors to consider before imposing pre-filing restrictions).
2 15-15166
Cunningham’s contentions regarding judicial bias are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-15166