NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 19 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELVIN J. HOWARD, No. 14-35693
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01111-ST
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MAXIMUS, INC., DBA Maxiums, Canada
Inc., DBA Themis Program Management &
Consulting Ltd.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Anna J. Brown, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Melvin J. Howard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging violations of international human rights, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and corporate law arising out
*
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).
of defendants’ alleged injuries to Howard and his business endeavors. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th
Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Howard’s action because Howard
failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim for relief. See id. at
341-42 (though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Johnson
v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2008) (“A Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the
absence of sufficient facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory.” (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We reject as unsupported by the record Howard’s contention that the district
court failed to consider any of the record or the claims he raised.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-35693