NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RODOLFO VELASQUEZ, No. 12-16845
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00433-LKK-
CKD
v.
CHASE HOME FINANCE LLC; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2014**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Rodolfo Velasquez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising from foreclosure proceedings and defendants’ alleged
failure to process his loan modification applications. We have jurisdiction under
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny
Velasquez’s request for oral argument set forth in his opening brief.
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.,
656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Velasquez’s wrongful foreclosure
claim arising under the Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”)
because Velasquez failed to state a cognizable claim for relief. See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be
liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); see also 12 U.S.C. § 5219a (providing guidelines for
HAMP, a federal program whereby the United States government privately
contracts with banks to provide incentives to enter into residential mortgage
modifications); Astra USA, Inc. v. Santa Clara County, 131 S. Ct. 1342, 1347
(2011) (private right of action for violating a federal action rests on congressional
intent to provide a private remedy; parties that incidentally benefit from a
government contract may not enforce the contract absent an intent to the contrary).
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)
(per curiam).
2 12-16845
Velasquez’s motions, filed on September 12, 2013, February 12, 2014, and
May 5, 2014, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-16845