U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 2026

Langarica v. Inland Valley Humane Society

Langarica v. Inland Valley Humane Society
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · Decided June 26, 2026
Langarica v. Inland Valley Humane Society

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 26 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MAYRA LANGARICA, No. 25-3592 D.C. No. 2:25-cv-00804-JFW-BFM Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY, Defendant - Appellee.

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

Mayra Langarica appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from the impoundment of her dogs.

We have jurisdiction under 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

* 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).

Cir. 2012). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Langarica’s action because Langarica 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)); Chaudhry v. Aragon, 68 F.4th 1161, 1169-70 (9th Cir. 2023) (setting forth the elements of § 1983 actions and explaining the requirements to establish causation).

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).

Langarica’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 6) is denied as unnecessary because Langarica’s in forma pauperis status from the district court carries over to this appeal. All other pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-3592

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.