FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 23 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA J. LITTLE, an attorney on No. 12-35297
leave,
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01387-JLR
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM *
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Defendant,
And
WASHINGTON STATE BAR
ASSOCIATION, a state agency; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 16, 2013 **
Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, 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).
Brenda J. Little, an attorney on leave, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state
law claims in connection with proceedings to determine the status of her
membership in the Washington State Bar Association. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072
(9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Dominguez v. Miller (In
re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Little’s action because the First
Amended Complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring pleading to contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d
1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (to be entitled to presumption of truth, a complaint’s
allegations may not simply recite elements of cause of action but must contain
sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and enable an effective
defense; factual allegations taken as true must plausibly suggest “entitlement to
relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the
expense of discovery and continued litigation”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
2 12-35297
1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 “is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule
12(b)(6)”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Defendant Washington State Bar Association’s opposed motion to strike
portions of Little’s reply brief is denied.
Defendant Muscatel’s motion to strike Little’s reply brief is denied.
Little’s request for sanctions, raised in her reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-35297