Feedback

Pechenuk V County Of Alameda

                           NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        JUL 23 2025
                                                                     MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MINDY PECHENUK,                                 No. 24-756
                                                D.C. No.
             Plaintiff - Appellant,             3:23-cv-04028-SK
 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; TIM
DUPUIS; CYNTHIA CORNEJO; NATE
MILEY; KEITH CARSON; DAVID
HAUBERT; SUSAN
MURANISHI; DONNA
ZIEGLER; SHIRLEY WEBER,

             Defendants - Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of California
                     Sallie Kim, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

                             Submitted July 14, 2025**

Before: HAWKINS, S.R. THOMAS, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.




      *
             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).
      Mindy Pechenuk appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing with

prejudice her 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) action alleging that various state and county

officials violated her civil rights in connection with her efforts to observe ballot

procedures during the November 2022 election cycle. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion to

dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Prodanova v. H.C.

Wainwright & Co., LLC, 993 F.3d 1097, 1105 (9th Cir. 2021), and review for abuse

of discretion the district court’s decision to decline leave to amend, Benavidez v.

County of San Diego, 993 F.3d 1134, 1141–42 (9th Cir. 2021). We “may affirm the

dismissal upon any basis fairly supported by the record.” Burgert v. Lokelani

Bernice Pauahi Bishop Trust, 200 F.3d 661, 663 (9th Cir. 2000).

      The district court properly dismissed the amended complaint because the

pleading does not allege specific facts to plausibly “support the existence of the

claimed conspiracy.” Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Medicine, 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th

Cir. 2004). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend.

See Rich v. Shrader, 823 F.3d 1205, 1209 (9th Cir. 2016) (“ [W]hen the district court

has already afforded a plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint, it has ‘wide

discretion in granting or refusing leave to amend after the first amendment.’”

(quoting Heay v. Phillips, 201 F.2d 220, 222 (9th Cir. 1952))).

      AFFIRMED.



                                        2                                    24-756