Aleman v. Aqua Caliente Casino

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANGEL FELIPE ALEMAN, No. 25-2470 D.C. No. 5:24-cv-01053-HDV- Plaintiff - Appellant, MAR v. MEMORANDUM* AQUA CALIENTE CASINO; ELDEGO; JOHN DOE, Aqua Caliente Casino, Security Officer, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Hernan Diego Vera, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 22, 2026** Before: CANBY, BENNETT, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Angel Felipe Aleman appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims against casino security guards and the casino’s owner. We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Aleman’s action because Aleman failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants were acting under color of state law for purposes of § 1983. 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)); Pasadena Republican Club v. W. Justice Ctr., 985 F.3d 1161, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2021) (explaining that § 1983 liability requires a defendant to act under color of state law, which is analyzed by “whether the defendant has exercised power possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Aleman’s motions to amend the case caption and for a copy of the court’s decision (Docket Entry Nos. 10, 13) are granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-2470