FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 21 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACOB SHECHET, No. 10-55631
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:07-cv-04320-MMM-
CW
v.
MARK Y. KIM, L.A. County C.S.S.D. MEMORANDUM *
Atty; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jacob Shechet appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants’ enforcement in California of
a child support order entered by a New York court violated his due process rights.
*
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).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for
failure to state a claim, Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th
Cir. 2001), and for an abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, Cervantes
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Shechet’s action because Shechet
failed to state a claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must nonetheless
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Sprewell,
266 F.3d at 988 (allegations “that contradict matters properly subject to judicial
notice or by exhibit,” or “that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences” need not be accepted as true).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that leave to
amend was not warranted. See Ceravantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (“Although leave to
amend should be given freely, a district court may dismiss without leave where a
plaintiff’s proposed amendments would fail to cure the pleading deficiencies and
amendment would be futile.”).
Issues that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the
opening brief are deemed waived. See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th
2 10-55631
Cir. 1999).
Defendants’ motion to strike, set forth in their Answering Brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-55631