MEMORANDUM **
Kurt A. Morozko appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A for failure to state a claim. Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 F.3d 1113, 1118 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Morozkos federal claims because Morozko failed to allege facts sufficient to show that he suffered a constitutional violation as a result of an official policy or custom. See Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060, 1073-76 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc) (discussing requirements to establish municipal liability under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978)).
The district court properly dismissed Morozkos claims for violation of Idahos criminal statutes because criminal statutes generally do not give rise to a private right of action. See Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the 20-page limit for pro se prisoner complaints in civil rights cases, set forth in Idaho General Order No. 342. See Leong v. Potter, 347 F.3d 1117, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003) (reviewing for abuse of discretion a district courts decision to enforce its procedural rules).
We reject as meritless Morozkos contention that the screening requirements of the Prison Litigation Reform Act are unconstitutional.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Morozkos motion for an order to show cause is denied.
AFFIRMED.