Wylmina Hettinga v. Eddie Garcia

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 3 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WYLMINA ELIZABETH HETTINGA, No. 20-55331
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00430-PA-JPR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
EDDIE GARCIA, Police Chief of the San
Jose Police Department, official capacity; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 26, 2020**
Before: McKEOWN, RAWLINSON, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations
arising from her divorce and custody proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Myers v. Bennett Law Offices, 238 F.3d 1068,
1071 (9th Cir. 2001) (dismissal for improper venue under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1));
Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissal under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hettinga’s claim against defendant
Theresa Loumena because Hettinga failed to allege facts sufficient to show that
Loumena was a state actor. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.
2010) (although pro se pleadings are construed liberally, plaintiff must present
factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); George v. Pac.–
CSC Work Furlough, 91 F.3d 1227, 1229-32 (9th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff alleging
infringement of constitutional rights by private parties must show that the
infringement constitutes state action; explaining approaches for determining state
action).
The district court properly dismissed the remaining defendants because
Hettinga failed to establish that any defendant resides in the Central District of
California or that a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to her
claims occurred there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1), (2) (describing where a civil
action may be brought).
2 20-55331
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 20-55331