JESSE GRAHAM V. CNN

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 19, 2022
• Docket: 22-55134
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 19 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JESSE GRAHAM, No. 22-55134

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07417-MCS-AGR

v. MEMORANDUM* CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 8, 2022**

Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Jesse Graham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court

order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Graham’s action

because Graham failed to respond to an order to show cause as to why the action

should not be dismissed for Graham’s falsification of the summons, and Graham

failed to effect proper service of process on defendant, despite receiving repeated

notice of the deficiencies in his proofs of service. See id. at 642-43 & n. 4 (listing

factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order; a

district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm

conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion

to set aside the entry of default and denying Graham’s motion for default judgment

because the record supports the district court’s conclusion that service of process

was insufficient. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs.,

Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A federal court does not have jurisdiction

over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly under Fed. R. Civ.

P. 4.”); see also SEC v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.

2007) (district court’s factual findings regarding jurisdiction are reviewed for clear

error); O’Connor v. Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 1994) (discussing district

court’s “especially broad” discretion to set aside an entry of default and discussing

relevant factors); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting

2 22-55134 forth standard of review for denial of default judgment).

Graham’s motion regarding the answering brief (Docket Entry No. 13) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-55134