NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 26 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THERESA MARGARET MacDONALD, No. 24-5254 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-00208-SLG-KFR v. MEMORANDUM* STATE OF ALASKA; ALASKA DEPARMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES; EMMA HADDIX, Assistant Attorney General; ALASKA OFFICE OF CHILDRENS SERVICES INC.; PAUL MCDERMOTT, Attorney For The Gardian ad litem; GABRIELLE LAURIA, Protective Specialist II; DOLLY KUGZRUK, Kawerak Mary's Igloo Tribal Representative Tribal C; HEATHER PAYENNA, Supervisor Tribal Family Coordinators Village Staff; JOANNE ROBERTSON, Official Capacity; ADRIANE BEANS; CHRISTINE EDWARDS; PATRICIA DALLAS; TALIA L. ROBINSON; ROBIN DARBONE; ASHLY ANDREWS; JENNIFER MAE HEIKKILA; RAMIAH VAOALII; KRISTINE MOORE; ROBIN CHARLIE; TREG TAYLOR; JAYNE E. FALLON; DEBRA HAALAND; BRYAN NEWLAND; JOANNE ROBERTS,

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 18, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Theresa Margaret MacDonald appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims concerning

the placement of her relative, a Native child, with a non-Native family. 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 MacDonald’s action because

MacDonald 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 panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 24-5254 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 are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-5254