Michael Smith v. United States

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMarch 29, 2024

Docket23-55030

StatusUnpublished

This text of Michael Smith v. United States (Michael Smith v. United States) 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

Michael Smith v. United States, (9th Cir. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL SMITH, No. 23-55030

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00798-DMS-BGS

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Michael Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) seeking to

collaterally attack his criminal conviction entered in the Eastern District of

Kentucky. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

* 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). Smith’s request for oral argument, set forth in the reply brief, is denied. of discretion. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th

Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v.

Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Smith’s action against the United States was proper because

Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show an explicit waiver of sovereign

immunity. See Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Absent its

consent to suit, an action against the United States must be dismissed.”);

Cominotto v. United States, 802 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Waiver of

immunity must be demonstrated by the party suing the United States.”), abrogated

on other grounds by Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-55030

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 29 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL SMITH, No. 23-55030

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00798-DMS-BGS

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

Michael Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) seeking to

collaterally attack his criminal conviction entered in the Eastern District of

Kentucky. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

* 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). Smith’s request for oral argument, set forth in the reply brief, is denied. of discretion. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th

Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v.

Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Smith’s action against the United States was proper because

Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show an explicit waiver of sovereign

immunity. See Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Absent its

consent to suit, an action against the United States must be dismissed.”);

Cominotto v. United States, 802 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Waiver of

immunity must be demonstrated by the party suing the United States.”), abrogated

on other grounds by Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

AFFIRMED.

2 23-55030

Related

Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain

542 U.S. 692 (Supreme Court, 2004)

John Cominotto v. United States

802 F.2d 1127 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)

Louie N. Elias v. W.H. Connett

908 F.2d 521 (Ninth Circuit, 1990)

William A. Appling Joseph J. Kelly Robert Buehler John Lloyd Daryl Mitchell Richard Pyorre John Weir Gerard M. Verdi William R. Sparks Leonard D. Doctor Jerry Lee Flanders Verne Walton Ins Larry K. Wilson Michael C. Hartman Daniel Brumfield Martin H. Lefton Douglas H. Perry Mathew N. Pickett, Jr. Jo Ann Searcy William R. Cornelison Marilyn J. Cusimano Dennis B. Farrell Andrew W. Gaines David B. Gordon Paul Julian Ins Rosanne Smith W.F. "Bill" Burbank Insurance Agency, Inc. Jean A. Cormier Lee Cramer Insurance Agency, Inc. Franklin Dutto Joan F. Ehler Raymond C. Gilmore Allen K. Golden Richard O. Johnson Gabriel O. Juarez, Jr. Bob Kennedy Insurance Agency, Inc. Lewis Insurance Agency, Inc. Lykke Insurance Agency, Inc. Robert G. Marshall Terry L. McManus Alan L. Perkins Dale W. Pitney, Jr. Eleanor E. Rowland Jorge Sotelo Insurance Agency, Inc. Anthony E. Vito Terry D. Walker Judy E. Weldin-Leathers Thomas A. Wilson Michelle B. Pierce, AKA Michelle B. Yates Clifford K. Young William Batchelder Hooper Insurance Agency Harold R. Little Fred Love Sam I. Mayeda Jim Moore Insurance Agency, Inc. Michael L. Morgan the Edward Pierce Insurance Agency, Inc. Dick Juge Insurance Agency, Inc. Paul Quilici Bill Bernard Insurance Agency, Inc. Jacob Castroll Reguera Insurance Agency, Inc. Chambers Insurance Agency, Inc. Lee P. Saghirian Tana P. Glockner, AKA Tana P. Glockner-Shultz Kenneth E. Carroll Richard S. Frank Insurance Agency, Inc. Bob Andras Insurance Agency, Inc. Patricia Adkins Insurance Agency, Inc. Joann M. Pergrem, AKA Joann McWilliams v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company State Farm Fire and Casualty Company State Farm Life Insurance Company State Farm General Insurance Company, William A. Appling Leonard D. Doctor Jerry Lee Flanders Larry K. Wilson Michael C. Hartman Daniel Brumfield Martin H. Lefton Douglas H. Perry Mathew N. Pickett, Jr. Jo Ann Searcy William R. Cornelison Marilyn J. Cusimano Dennis B. Farrell Andrew W. Gaines David B. Gordon Rosanne Smith Paul Julian Insurance Agency, Inc. Verne Walton Insurance Agency, Inc. Raymond C. Gilmore Bob Kennedy Insurance Agency, Inc. Lewis Insurance Agency, Inc. Dale W. Pitney, Jr. Anthony E. Vito Terry D. Walker Paul Quilici Jacob Castroll v. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company State Farm Fire and Casualty Company State Farm Life Insurance Company State Farm General Insurance Company

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

Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, LP

534 F.3d 1116 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Michael Smith v. United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-smith-v-united-states-ca9-2024.