Broderick Warfield v. Usaf

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
SEP 21 2021
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRODERICK J. WARFIELD, No. 20-17176
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00853-KJM-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE, 60th
Security Forces, Travis Air Force Base, CA;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 14, 2021**
Before: PAEZ, NGUYEN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Broderick J. Warfield appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his employment discrimination action. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112
*
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).
(9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Pickern v. Pier 1
Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (failure to comply with
notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Warfield’s action because, despite two
opportunities to amend, Warfield failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims
and failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2) (requiring a pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 555 (2007) (explaining that Rule 8 requires the complaint “give the defendant
fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (alteration
in original, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (explaining that although pro se pleadings are
construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980)
(explaining that criminal statutes do not give rise to civil liability).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would
be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th
2 20-17176
Cir. 2008) (explaining that “the district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is
particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted)).
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).
Warfield’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 4) and
motion to unseal documents (Docket Entry No. 6) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-17176