Alejandro Evaristo Perez v. Linkedin Corporation

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALEJANDRO EVARISTO PEREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15234
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-07238-EJD
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Edward J. Davila, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Alejandro Evaristo Perez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging First Amendment 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). Cervantes 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
NOV 18 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15234
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Perez’s action because Perez 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 Prager U.
v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2020) (internet media websites are
not government actors under the First Amendment); Hughes v. Pair, 209 P.3d 963,
976 (Cal. 2009) (elements of claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress);
Kibler v. N. Inyo County Loc. Hosp. Dist., 138 P.3d 193, 198 (Cal. 2006)
(California’s Anti-SLAPP statute does not provide a separate cause of action).
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 --