NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 10 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEO EDWARD McCALIP, No. 16-55510
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01121-AB-GJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TED CONFERENCES, LLC; SAPLING
FOUNDATION,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andre Birotte, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Geo Edward McCalip appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 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). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed McCalip’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Cal.
Civ. Code § 52.1 claims because McCalip failed to allege facts sufficient to show
that defendants acted under the color of state law. See Chudacoff v. Univ. Med.
Ctr. of S. Nev., 649 F.3d 1143, 1149 (9th Cir. 2011) (elements of § 1983 action);
Dietrich v. John Ascuaga’s Nugget, 548 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2008) (“Merely
complaining to the police does not convert a private party into a state actor.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Jones v. Kmart Corp., 949 P.2d
941, 943-44 (Cal. 1998) (private individual cannot be liable under § 52.1 for
alleged direct violation of federal constitutional right).
The district court properly dismissed McCalip’s Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 claim
because McCalip did not allege facts demonstrating malice, oppression, or fraud.
See Cal. Civ. Code § 3294 (requirements for punitive damages under California
law).
We reject as unsupported by the record McCalip’s contentions regarding
defendants misleading the district court.
We do not consider evidence, allegations, or arguments raised for the first
time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009);
2 16-55510
Lowry v. Barnhart, 329 F.3d 1019, 1025 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The appellate process is
for addressing the legal issues a case presents, not for generating new evidence to
parry an opponent’s arguments.”); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th
Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not presented to the district court are not part of
the record on appeal.”). To the extent McCalip requests in his opening brief that
we vacate and remand so that he may introduce allegations and evidence related to
contracts between defendants and the City of Long Beach that were in McCalip’s
possession, but not introduced, during the underlying proceedings, we deny the
request.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-55510