Matthew Robert Young v. State of Oregon;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MATTHEW ROBERT YOUNG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF OREGON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35412
D.C. No. 6:13-cv-02039-TC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Matthew Robert Young appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims relating to his
conditions of confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
FILED
AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

claim, Cholla Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004), and we
affirm.
Contrary to Young’s contentions, defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim was a procedurally proper response to Young’s second amended
complaint and the district court properly ruled on it. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
(the defense of failure to state a claim may be raised by motion, rather than a
responsive pleading).
We do not address the merits of the district court’s order dismissing Young’s
claims because Young has failed to address the substance of the district court’s
order in his opening brief. See Brownfield v. City of Yakima, 612 F.3d 1140, 1149
n.4 (9th Cir. 2010) (“We review only issues [that] are argued specifically and
distinctly in a party’s opening brief.”).
Young’s Motion to Add the Missing Judgment Order as Appendix to the Pro
Se Brief, filed on November 2, 2015, is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
15-35412 2

-- 2 of 2 --