Opinion
20-55856
07-29-2021
BRIAN E. FINANDER; MARLENE R. FINANDER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted July 19, 2021[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 5:20-cv-00449-JVS-GJS
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Brian E. Finander and Marlene R. Finander appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claims against the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. See Greater L.A. Council on Deafness, Inc. v. Zolin, 812 F.2d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 1987), superseded by statute on other grounds (a suit against a California superior court is a suit against the state, which is barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity).
The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs' claim against the County of Riverside because plaintiffs failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).
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).
AFFIRMED. [*] 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).