Jean Crump v. United States of America;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEAN CRUMP,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-55950
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-04760-RGK-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2019**
Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jean Crump 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 under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152
* 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 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-55950
F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Crump’s action because Crump 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,
plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for
relief); see also FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476-78, 484-86 (1994) (the United
States has not waived its sovereign immunity for constitutional torts; a Bivens
cause of action may not be brought against a government agency); West v. Atkins,
487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (elements of a § 1983 claim); Garmon v. County of Los
Angeles, 828 F.3d 837, 842-43 (9th Cir. 2016) (application of absolute
prosecutorial immunity); Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124, 1133 (9th Cir.
2001) (application of judicial immunity).
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 --