
    James Earl BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JAMES E BROWN AND ASSOCIATES, APC, a California Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-56317
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 30, 2017
    James Earl Brown, Pro Se
    Lawrence Silver, Esquire, Attorney, Silver & Field, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Irma Gutierrez, Oscar Gutierrez, Estella Gutierrez, Lawrence Silver
    Melinda Cantrall, Thomas Hurrell, Hur-rell Cantrall LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee David Mauphin
    Tim Laske, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USLA — Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Ap-pellees US Attorney General, Mark E. Field, George H. King, Beatrice Herrera, M. Ramirez, Pat Gomez, Mariana R. Pfael-zer, Internal Revenue Service, Chris Sawyer
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

James Earl Brown, a disbarred California attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from his former law practice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Brown’s action because Brown failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests and motions are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     