James Conerly; Marilyn Tillman-Conerly; Carina Conerly; M. T. v. Kaiser Permanente

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES CONERLY; MARILYN
TILLMAN-CONERLY; CARINA
CONERLY; M. T.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
KAISER PERMANENTE; SABRINA V.
KO; ANDREW K. LEE; TERI L.
TROLIO; LIEN QUOC TRAN; STATE
COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND;
CALHR; MAKAY BUTZ; ERAINA
ORTEGA; SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF
SACRAMENTO; NORA WILLIAMS;
JUNE D. COLEMAN; LAURI
DAMRELL; CME; VERACITY
RESEARCH COMPANY; SHAW LAW
GROUP, PC; SHARIF ROLDAN
TARPIN; CALIFORNIA STATE
TEACHERS’ RETIREMENT SYSTEM;
DEREK DANIELS; NICOLE NADDY;
DARCY MASLOW; CHRISTINE
MARTINEZ; JOSHUA GOLDSMITH;
BIANCA NOVOA; ANA JESSICA
MOSQUEDA; LESLIE CARTER-
PADILLA; STEPHANIE HILL;
No. 21-16603
D.C. No.
2:19-cv-02535-JAM-DB
MEMORANDUM*
FILED
DEC 13 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

-- 1 of 5 --

MELISSA NORCIA; DEREK
BONDURANT; CASSANDRA
LICHNOCK; SEIU LOCAL 1000;
LEZLIE UKODE; BRANDI LOPES;
LABOR RELATIONS; SEIU
INTERNATIONAL; MARY KAY
HENRY; AMERICA RENOVATIONS
CENTER; BESSIDA TAONDA;
LASSANE BONKOUNGOU; JOGINDER
DHILLON; CHARMAINE ACEITUNO;
KARLA YVONNE BROUSSARD-
BOYD; STACY MIRANDA, DAVID
TODD WALTON; ANGELA M. DIAZ;
KRISTY MICHELLE TORAIN; TRISH
HIGGINS; PEDRO LEON; YVONNE R.
WALKER; TIFFANY MORRIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
James Conerly, Marilyn Tillman-Conerly, Carina Conerly, and M.T.
(collectively, Appellants) appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2

-- 2 of 5 --

dismissing their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) without leave to amend. We
affirm.
Reviewing de novo, we agree with the district court that the SAC failed to
state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 12(b)(6); Gingery v. City of Glendale,
831 F.3d 1222, 1226 (9th Cir. 2016); see also Anderson v. Warner, 451 F.3d 1063,
1067 (9th Cir. 2006).1 While the SAC makes passing reference to a variety of
constitutional and statutory provisions, it does not allege facts that “plausibly give
rise to an entitlement to relief”2 on those grounds, or that support the elements of a
cause of action pursuant to any of those provisions.3 See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at
678–80, 129 S. Ct. at 1949–50; Jones v. Cmty. Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d
1 Because we affirm the dismissal of the SAC on this ground, we need not
and do not consider alternative grounds for dismissal. See Gingery, 831 F.3d at
1226.
2 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950, 173 L. Ed. 2d
868 (2009).
3 See, e.g., Knick v. Township of Scott, __ U.S. __, __, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2167,
204 L. Ed. 2d 558 (2019) (Fifth Amendment); Lyall v. City of Los Angeles, 807
F.3d 1178, 1186 (9th Cir. 2015) (Fourth Amendment);Crowe v. County of San
Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (conspiracy); Beck v. United Food &
Com. Workers Union, 506 F.3d 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2007) (Title VII); Thornton v.
City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1164, 1166 (9th Cir. 2005) (equal protection and
due process); Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 584–85 (9th Cir. 2004) (Sixth
Amendment).
3

-- 3 of 5 --

646, 649–50 (9th Cir. 1984). Courts must liberally construe pro se complaints,4
but are not required to supply essential elements of claims that were not pled. See
Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135, 1140 (9th Cir. 2011) (en
banc).
The district court did not abuse its discretion5 in dismissing the SAC without
leave to amend on the ground that granting further leave to amend would have
been futile. See Lockheed Martin Corp. v. Network Sols., Inc., 194 F.3d 980, 986
(9th Cir. 1999). Appellants were given guidance to remedy the deficiencies of
their original complaint at the time that pleading was dismissed,6 but they failed to
follow that advice. See Jones, 733 F.2d at 650–51. Appellants’ continued inability
to comply with the Federal Rules showed that granting further leave to amend was
futile, particularly when Appellants did not (and do not) suggest how they would
or could amend the complaint to state a claim. See Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux Tribe
v. United States, 90 F.3d 351, 356 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Cafasso, 637 F.3d at
1058–59.
4 Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1212 (9th Cir. 2012).
5 Cafasso ex rel. United States v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011); United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1261–63 (9th
Cir. 2009) (en banc).
6 Akhtar, 698 F.3d at 1212.
4

-- 4 of 5 --

We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal or matters
not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985–86, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
5

-- 5 of 5 --