Adeyinka v. Hendrie

── Adeyinka v. Hendrie ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EMMANUEL ADEYINKA, No. 26-154 D.C. No. 3:25-cv-01594-SB Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* AYDEN HENDRIE, #65356, Police Officer, Portland Police Bureau; CITY OF PORTLAND, Municipal Corporation; DESIREE SHEPHERD, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Michael H. Simon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Emmanuel Adeyinka appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from his arrest. We * 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). have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Adeyinka’s action because Adeyinka failed to allege facts sufficient to state any 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)); Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896, 918 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth the requirements of a Fourth Amendment false arrest claim); Karim-Panahi v. L.A. Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 626 (9th Cir. 1988) (setting forth elements of a claim under § 1985(3)); see also Lockett v. County of Los Angeles, 977 F.3d 737, 741 (9th Cir. 2020) (explaining that municipal liability claims under § 1983 require a plaintiff to show an underlying constitutional violation). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 26-154