Angela Nails v. Cory Carpenter

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANGELA NAILS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CORY CARPENTER,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-15946
D.C. No. 4:22-cv-00194-RCC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 18, 2023**
Before: GRABER, PAEZ, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Angela Nails appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
her action alleging race discrimination under Title VI. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir.
* 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 2 --

2 22-15946
2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Nails’s action because Nails failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that defendant discriminated against Nails on the
basis of her race. See Fobbs v. Holy Cross Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447
(9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth pleading requirements for a Title VI discrimination
claim), overruled on other grounds by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare
Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its
face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
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).
Nails’s “motion of proper service” is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --