NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 22 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STANLEY MARCUS GALYEAN, No. 14-35604
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-01359-MJP
v.
MEMORANDUM*
NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES
INC.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2016**
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Stanley Marcus Galyean appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of the
foreclosure of his home. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
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).
de novo the district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6), Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010), and we affirm.
To the extent that Galyean raises his contract claims on appeal, the district
court properly dismissed them because Galyean failed to allege facts sufficient to
state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe, 627 F.3d at 341-42 (although pro se
pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations
sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Zuver v. Airtouch
Communications, Inc., 103 P.3d 753, 759-68 (Wash. 2004) (discussing
unconscionability of contracts under Washington law). Galyean waived any
challenge to the dismissal of his other claims, most of which were dismissed as
time-barred, by failing to explain in his opening brief how the district court erred.
See Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments
not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
We reject as without merit Galyean’s contentions that Defendant IndyMac
Federal Bank did not exist at the time defendants foreclosed on his home, that his
loan was improperly “converted to an eMortgage,” and that he had the right to
demand production of his promissory note prior to paying it.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-35604