FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER BURNS, No. 11-16106
Plaintiff, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00023-CW
and
MEMORANDUM *
ALICE BURNS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FIRST AMERICAN TRUSTEE
SERVICING SOLUTIONS LLP; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
*
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).
Alice Burns appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
action arising out of foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9th
Cir. 2002) (per curiam), and we affirm.
The district court properly concluded that Burns’ mortgage contract did not
subject Burns to involuntary servitude and properly dismissed Burns’ claims
premised on this servitude theory. See United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931,
943 (1988) (involuntary servitude is established when a “victim had no available
choice but to work or be subject to legal sanction”); see also Cafasso v. Gen.
Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In reviewing the
dismissal of a complaint, we inquire whether the complaint’s factual allegations,
together with all reasonable inferences, state a plausible claim for relief.”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor matters raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
We lack jurisdiction to review the district court’s order denying Burns’
motion for reconsideration because Burns failed to file an amended notice of
appeal from that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii).
2 11-16106
Burns’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Finally, Burns’ motion to certify the matter to the United States Supreme
Court is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 11-16106