Case Explained: LANGARICA V. INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 Docket: 2:25-cv-00804-JFW-BFM The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Mayra Langarica’s pro se civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 regarding the impoundment of her dogs. The court reviewed the dismissal de novo under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and held that the complaint failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Applying the standard set forth in *Ashcroft v. Iqbal*, the court determined that Langarica’s allegations did not contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to make her claim plausible on its face. The court also declined to consider arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal and denied Langarica’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as unnecessary since her status from the district court carries over to the appeal. Consequently, the judgment of dismissal is upheld, and all other pending motions are denied. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.