BRIESA McCLAIN; JOAQUIN McCLAIN v. County of San Bernardino;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIESA McCLAIN; JOAQUIN McCLAIN,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
JORDAN BERNAL; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 20-55544
D.C. Nos.
5:18-cv-01648-CJC-PLA
5:17-cv-01178-CJC-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Briesa and Joaquin McClain appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
* 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
APR 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 20-55544
dismissing their consolidated action alleging various federal claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Conservation Force v. Salazar, 646 F.3d
1240, 1241 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the McClains’s action because the
McClains failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claims, and because
the complaint failed to comport with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1) (a pleading that states a claim for
relief must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief; each allegation must be simple, concise, and direct);
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)).
The district court properly denied Briesa McClain’s motion for partial
summary judgment as premature and moot.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the McClain’s
request for judicial notice. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b) (outlining the requirements for
judicial notice).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

-- 2 of 3 --

3 20-55544
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --