Stevens v. County of Nevada

── Stevens v. County of Nevada ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 7 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JERAMY MICHAEL STEVENS, No. 24-6980 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-01830-KJM-CKD Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF NEVADA; BRANDI JONES; MARIANNA BREWER; SHANNON MOON, Sheriff; JASON MACKEY, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 22, 2026** Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges. Jeramy Michael Stevens appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims in connection with * 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). state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Stevens’s action because Stevens 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)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in 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 motion (Docket Entry No. 7) for appointment of counsel is denied. The motion (Docket Entry No. 15) for permission to file a supplemental brief is granted in part. The clerk will file the supplemental brief at Docket Entry No. 16. All other 2 24-6980 requests in Docket Entry No. 15 are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 24-6980