Praveen Khurana v. State of Idaho

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PRAVEEN KHURANA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF IDAHO; DOUGLAS
FLEENOR; ROBERT RINARD; DAPHNE
HUANG; RENU VERMA, and John Doe
(Wife and Husband); VIMAL VERMA, and
Jane Doe (Husband and wife); KAMAL
VERMA, and Jane Doe (Husband and wife);
NEELAM KAKKAR, Wife and Husband;
ARUN KAKKAR, Wife and Husband;
DOREEN SULTMA, and spouse of Doreen
Sulyma,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35964
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00553-DCN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
* 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
DEC 14 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35964
Praveen Khurana appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging various claims related to child support payments.
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). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Khurana’s action because Khurana
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See 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)).
To the extent that Khurana contends that the district court was biased against
him or failed to review his amended complaints, we reject his contentions as
unsupported by the record.
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 --