Taniela Kivalu v. Northcentral University ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                                                                          FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION
    JUN 30 2023
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    TANIELA F. KIVALU,                              No. 21-16811
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00379-SPL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY;
    TRUSTEE BOARD MEMBERS OF
    NORTHCENTRAL UNIVERSITY;
    MICHAEL CAHILL; SAM BARSTOSKY;
    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION;
    UNITED STATES CREDIT BUREAUS;
    UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as Others,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted June 26, 2023**
    Before:      CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    Taniela F. Kivalu appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    *
    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).
    dismissing his action alleging federal disability discrimination claims. We have
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review de novo a dismissal under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1915
    (e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 
    668 F.3d 1108
    , 1112 (9th Cir.
    2012). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Kivalu’s action because Kivalu failed
    to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v. Pliler,
    
    627 F.3d 338
    , 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed
    liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible
    claim for relief).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    All pending requests are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                     21-16811
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-16811

Filed Date: 6/30/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 7/1/2023