Alison Lorraine Hatheway v. Aileen Defeo

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALISON LORRAINE HATHEWAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
AILEEN DEFEO,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 20-16126
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05610-DLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Douglas L. Rayes, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 20, 2021**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Alison Lorraine Hatheway appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of
foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review de novo the district court’s sua sponte dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil
* 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 28 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-16126
Procedure 12(b)(6). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.
1987). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hatheway’s action sua sponte after
giving Hathaway “notice of its sua sponte intention to invoke Rule 12(b)(6) and
afford[ing her] an opportunity to . . . submit a written memorandum in opposition
to such motion[.]” Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted); 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)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --