Barbara A. Stuart Robinson v. City of Phoenix

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BARBARA A. STUART ROBINSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 19-17536
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-04786-DJH-CDB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Diane J. Humetewa, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2021**
Before: GRABER, R. NELSON, and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
Barbara A. Stuart Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 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). Doughtery
* 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
MAR 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-17536
v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 897 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s action because Robinson
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 construed liberally,
a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief); see also Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir.
2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under
Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)); Navarro v. Block,
72 F.3d 712, 714 (9th Cir. 1996) (“Proof of random acts or isolated events is
insufficient to establish custom.”).
We reject as unpersuasive Robinson’s contention regarding errors in the
district court’s civil rights complaint form.
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 of 2 --