NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESUS TORRES, No. 19-17583

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-07415-KAW

v.

MEMORANDUM*

SAN FRANCISCO HUMAN SERVICES

AGENCY; TRENT RHORER, Executive Director of HSA, in his official capacity,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**

Submitted December 14, 2021***

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Jesus Torres appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). connection with the discontinuation of his public benefits. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s

decision to dismiss without leave to amend. Cervantes v. Countrywide Home

Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Torres’s action

without further leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See id.

(dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); see

also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (due process requires notice

and an opportunity to be heard); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003

(9th Cir. 2002) (explaining that a district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend

is “particularly broad” when it has previously granted leave to amend).

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).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-17583