Clayton Gunn, Jr. v. County of Butte

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLAYTON GUNN, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF BUTTE, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-15008
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01729-KJM-DMC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Clayton Gunn, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law
claims arising out of, among other things, an arrest, pretrial detention, and
prosecution. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
* 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
JAN 26 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-15008
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cholla Ready Mix, Inc.
v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Gunn’s federal claims because Gunn
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 Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 669 (9th Cir. 2021) (elements
of a Fourteenth Amendment claim for failure to provide adequate medical care);
Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073–76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en
banc) (requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Dep’t of Soc.
Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 919 (9th
Cir. 2012) (en banc) (elements of a malicious prosecution claim under § 1983,
including a lack of probable cause); Serrano v. Francis, 345 F.3d 1071, 1082 (9th
Cir. 2003) (a claim for violation of the Equal Protection Clause requires plaintiff to
show intentional discrimination based upon his membership in a protected class);
Cabrera v. City of Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 380 (9th Cir. 1998) (per
curiam) (a § 1983 claim for false arrest and imprisonment requires plaintiff to
show a lack of probable cause).
The district court properly dismissed Gunn’s state law claims because Gunn
failed to comply with California’s Government Claims Act (“GCA”) and failed to

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-15008
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 905,
911.2, 945.4; Mangold v. Cal. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 67 F.3d 1470, 1477 (9th Cir.
1995) (failure to allege compliance with the GCA subjects a state law claim against
public defendants to dismissal); Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (Cal. 2009)
(elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under California
law); Hawran v. Hixon, 147 Cal. Rptr. 3d 88, 106 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (elements
of defamation and false light claims under California law).
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.

-- 3 of 3 --