Edward Jackson v. Bank of America, a Corporation, erroneously sued as Bank of America NA

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD JACKSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, a Corporation,
erroneously sued as Bank of America NA,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-55819
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-02522-JGB-SP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Edward Jackson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (“ECOA”) and
Federal Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), Hebbe 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).
FILED
FEB 23 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-55819
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Jackson’s action because Jackson
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim and because Jackson’s
claims are time-barred. See id. at 341-42 (although pro se pleadings are liberally
construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see
also 15 U.S.C. § 1961e(f) (statute of limitations for claims under the ECOA);
Gorman v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP, 584 F.3d 1147, 1153-54 (9th Cir. 2009)
(setting forth disclosure requirements under the FCRA).
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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Jackson’s contention that the district
court dismissed his action because of a mere typographical error or failed to hold
him to a less stringent standard as a pro se litigant.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --