June 29, 2026·2:25-cv-00829-KKE·Unpublished·By Maria Santos
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment dismissing a pro se plaintiff's action alleging claims based on statements made during prior litigation. The appellate panel held that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim and that any amendment to the pleading would have been futile.
Benjamin Joseph Ligeri appealed pro se from a district court judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of defendants’ statements in prior litigation.
The court’s reasoning
The court reviewed the dismissal de novo and concluded that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal. The court noted that criminal statutes generally do not give rise to private rights of action and that Washington law does not impose liability on attorneys, parties, or witnesses for statements made in the course of judicial proceedings that are pertinent to the litigation. Additionally, the court found no abuse of discretion in denying further leave to amend because amendment would have been futile.
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces the standard for pleading plausibility and confirms that judicial proceedings immunity protects participants from liability for pertinent statements made during litigation, even when raised in subsequent suits.
