Background
Mayra Langarica appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing her Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three action arising from the impoundment of her dogs. The district court had dismissed the action for failure to state a plausible claim.
The court’s reasoning
The panel reviewed the dismissal de novo and concluded that the district court properly dismissed the action because Langarica failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. The court cited Ashcroft versus Iqbal, noting that a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. The court also declined to consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal.
a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the requirement that pro se litigants must plead sufficient factual matter to state a plausible claim to avoid dismissal under Section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three.