NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GERTI MUHO, No. 15-16490
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-03219-HSG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITIBANK, NA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gerti Muho appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
diversity action alleging breach of contract and tort claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for
failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Hebbe v.
*
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).
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Muho’s action because Muho 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 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).
We reject as without merit Muho’s contentions that the district court violated
his right to procedural due process.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-16490