Douglas Myser v. Steven Tangen

Ninth Circuit

Douglas Myser v. Steven Tangen

671 F. App'x 1006

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 22, 2016

Docket15-35169

StatusUnpublished

This text of 671 F. App'x 1006 (Douglas Myser v. Steven Tangen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Douglas Myser v. Steven Tangen, 671 F. App'x 1006 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Douglas Luther Myser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

*1007 § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of an independent action to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not- abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s action for failure to state a claim because the alleged perjury by witnesses and mischaracterization of the relevant legal standard by Spokane’s attorneys do not amount to fraud on the court. See id. (explaining that “[fjraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice” and “perjury by a party or witness, does not, by itself, amount to fraud on the court” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 444 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Most fraud on the court cases involve a scheme by one party to hide a key fact from the court and the opposing party.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See Zueco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and stating that district court may deny leave to amend when plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies by previous amendments and further amendment would be futile).

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).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Douglas Luther Myser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

*1007 § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of an independent action to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not- abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s action for failure to state a claim because the alleged perjury by witnesses and mischaracterization of the relevant legal standard by Spokane’s attorneys do not amount to fraud on the court. See id. (explaining that “[fjraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice” and “perjury by a party or witness, does not, by itself, amount to fraud on the court” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 444 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Most fraud on the court cases involve a scheme by one party to hide a key fact from the court and the opposing party.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See Zueco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and stating that district court may deny leave to amend when plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies by previous amendments and further amendment would be futile).

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).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

340 F.3d 769 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)

Zucco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp.

552 F.3d 981 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

671 F. App'x 1006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/douglas-myser-v-steven-tangen-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack