MEMORANDUM **
Ruth Ann Conde Cheesman appeals pro se from the district courts summary judgment in her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Mabe v. San Bernardino Cty., Dept of Pub. Soc. Servs., 237 F.3d 1101, 1106 (9th Cir. 2001). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Ellensburg School District because Cheesman failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether any policy or custom of the school district caused her to suffer constitutional injuries. See Monell v. Dept of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) (municipal liability under § 1983 requires execution of policy or custom that inflicts plaintiffs constitutional injury).
The district court properly granted summary judgment for the individual defendants because Cheesman failed to raise a triable dispute as to any of her claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (setting forth evidentiary support required in opposing a motion for summary judgment); Crowe v. County of San Diego, 608 F.3d 406, 440 (9th Cir. 2010) (a conspiracy claim requires the existence of an agreement or meeting of the minds to violate constitutional rights); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (liability under § 1983 requires showing of personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation); Swank v. Valley Christian Sch., 188 Wash.2d 663, 398 P.3d 1108, 1120 (2017) (defining gross negligence under Washington law); Lyons v. U.S. Bank Natl Assn, 181 Wash.2d 775, 336 P.3d 1142, 1151 (2014) (setting forth elements of an intentional infliction of emotional distress claim under Washington law); see also Kirkpatrick v. County of Washoe, 843 F.3d 784, 790 (9th Cir. 2016) (in context of removal of child from parental custody, Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable, warrantless seizure by government officials belongs to the child, not the parent).
We reject as unpersuasive Cheesmans contentions that the district court violated her Sixth Amendment rights, her right to a jury trial, and her due process rights.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Cheesmans request to submit supplemental exhibits, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.