DocketNumber: 21-15234
Filed Date: 11/18/2021
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/18/2021
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 18 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALEJANDRO EVARISTO PEREZ, No. 21-15234 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-07238-EJD v. MEMORANDUM* LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 8, 2021** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Alejandro Evaristo Perez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging First Amendment and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under28 U.S.C. § 1291
. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. * 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). Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,656 F.3d 1034
, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Perez’s action because Perez failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler,627 F.3d 338
, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Prager U. v. Google LLC,951 F.3d 991
, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2020) (internet media websites are not government actors under the First Amendment); Hughes v. Pair,209 P.3d 963
, 976 (Cal. 2009) (elements of claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress); Kibler v. N. Inyo County Loc. Hosp. Dist.,138 P.3d 193
, 198 (Cal. 2006) (California’s Anti-SLAPP statute does not provide a separate cause of action). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright,587 F.3d 983
, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 21-15234