MEMORANDUM Bobby Lee Kinder, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal apd state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Kinder’s action because Kinder 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); see also See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (requirement for establishing municipal liability claim); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (explaining personal participation requirement); Crumpton v. Gates, 947 F.2d 1418, 1420 (9th Cir. 1991) (elements of § 1983 action).
To the extent Kinder requests copies of his medical records, copies of a police report, and the appointment of counsel in his opening brief, Kinder’s requests are denied. We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. ThiS disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.