LINDA ALEXANDER, ET AL V. CITY OF RICHLAND, No. 22-36019 (9th Cir. 2023)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LINDA M. ALEXANDER; LIVE VICTORIOUSLY MINISTRIES, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 22-36019 D.C. No. 4:22-cv-05110-TOR Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. CITY OF RICHLAND, A Municipal Corporation, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington Thomas O. Rice, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 12, 2023** Before: WALLACE, LEE, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Linda M. Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal * 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). Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. United States, 330 F.3d 1186, 1187 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Alexander’s action because Alexander failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). All pending requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 22-36019

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.