Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne

Ninth Circuit

Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne

699 F. App'x 749

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 30, 2017

Docket16-35704

StatusUnpublished

This text of 699 F. App'x 749 (Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne) 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

Lyle Coultas v. Steven Payne, 699 F. App'x 749 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of due process, conversion under state law, and an independent claim of fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Coultas’s conversion claim as barred by the Oregon Tort Claims Act’s (“OTCA”) two-year statute of limitations. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275(9); Bell v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 353 Or. 535, 301 P.3d 901, 908 (2013) (the OTCA supersedes statutes of limitations that might otherwise apply in tort actions against public bodies and their officers and employees).

Dismissal of Coultas’s claim to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court was proper because Coultas failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 20Ó3) (“Fraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Coultas’s contention concerning judicial bias.

AFFIRMED,

***

xhiS 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 ***

Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of due process, conversion under state law, and an independent claim of fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis of the applicable statute of limitations and for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v. City of San Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Coultas’s conversion claim as barred by the Oregon Tort Claims Act’s (“OTCA”) two-year statute of limitations. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275(9); Bell v. Tri-Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 353 Or. 535, 301 P.3d 901, 908 (2013) (the OTCA supersedes statutes of limitations that might otherwise apply in tort actions against public bodies and their officers and employees).

Dismissal of Coultas’s claim to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court was proper because Coultas failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 20Ó3) (“Fraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Coultas’s contention concerning judicial bias.

AFFIRMED,

***

xhiS 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)

Ventura Mobilehome Communities Owners Association, an Unincorporated Association v. City of San Buenaventura

371 F.3d 1046 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)

Thompson v. Paul

547 F.3d 1055 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Padgett v. Wright

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

Bell v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District

301 P.3d 901 (Oregon Supreme Court, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

699 F. App'x 749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lyle-coultas-v-steven-payne-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack