Opinion
21-55453
07-18-2022
STEPHEN YAGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIC MICHAEL GARCETTI; et al., Defendants-Appellees
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02722-DMG-JEM
Before: SCHROEDER, R. NELSON, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Stephen Yagman appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 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 Rule of Civil Procedure 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 Yagman's excessive fines and intrastate travel claims because Yagman failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334 (1998) (explaining that a fine is unconstitutionally excessive under the Eighth Amendment if its amount is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense); Yagman v. Garcetti, 852 F.3d 859, 867 (9th Cir. 2017) (explaining that because plaintiff failed to allege a violation of his constitutional rights, "he cannot maintain derivative constitutional claims based on that conduct," including conspiracy and Monell claims); Nunez ex rel. Nunez v. City of San Diego, 114 F.3d 935, 944 n. 7 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that neither the Supreme Court nor the Ninth Circuit has recognized a protected right to intrastate travel); cf. Miller v. Reed, 176 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 1999) (recognizing that "minor burdens impacting interstate travel" do not constitute a violation of the right to interstate travel).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that "the district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the complaint" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Yagman's motions to impose service costs because Yagman did not show that he sent defendants waiver requests that complied with Rule 4(d)(1) and because defendants had good cause to not sign and return a waiver. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(d); Estate of Darulis v. Garate, 401 F.3d 1060, 1063 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review).
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.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).