Kulick v. Collins

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 25 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT R. J. KULICK, No. 24-4377 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-04209-RGK-SK Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* DOUG COLLINS; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; DOES, 1-100, inclusive, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 18, 2025** Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges. R. J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s sua sponte 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). Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Kulick’s action because Kulick failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that, 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)). Kulick’s motion regarding his opening brief (Docket Entry No. 11) is denied as unnecessary. The opening brief was filed on October 28, 2024. AFFIRMED. 2 24-4377