Powell v. Rasmussen

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 16, 2026
• Docket: 24-6587
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 16 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEBRA POWELL, an individual, No. 24-6587 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:19-cv-01077-JR v. MEMORANDUM* JOHN DENNIS RASMUSSEN, an individual,

Defendant - Appellant,

and

COLTON RASMUSSEN, an individual, IAN RASMUSSEN, an individual, Nominal Defendant TERRA-MAGIC, INC., an Oregon corporation, Nominal Defendant TERRA-MAGIC SEEDS, LTD., an Oregon corporation,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Jolie A. Russo, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

* 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). Before: CLIFTON, FRIEDLAND, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Defendant John Dennis Rasmussen appeals pro se the district court’s

supplemental judgment and money award in favor of Plaintiff Debra Powell. We

affirm.

We review the district court’s factual findings for clear error and its

conclusions of law, and any mixed questions of law and fact, de novo. Fed. Trade

Comm’n v. Qualcomm Inc., 969 F.3d 974, 993 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing OneBeacon

Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011)).

Defendant argues that the district court violated Securities and Exchange

Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5; Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United

States Constitution; 28 U.S.C. § 2041; and principles of admiralty and maritime

jurisdiction in failing to consider the purported bonds tendered by Defendant in

satisfaction of the judgment against him, which he provided to the district court as

an attachment to a brief. Neither SEC Rule 10b-5, which prohibits insider trading,

nor Article III, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution, which defines the contours

of judicial power, supports the claim Defendant raises, nor does any other legal

authority Defendant has identified.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s attorney and expert witness conspired

to create a fictitious method of accounting that resulted in a fraudulent calculation

of annual profits generated by Terra Magic, Inc. and Terra Magic Seeds, Ltd. The

2 24-6587 District Court based its calculation of annual profits on testimony from Defendant

himself and from Plaintiff’s expert. The record contains no evidence to suggest

that the accounting principles used by Plaintiff’s expert were fraudulent. In any

event, Defendant’s argument is immaterial because Defendant calculated higher

annual profits than Plaintiff’s expert did. Defendant has not shown that any of the

District Court’s calculations were clearly erroneous.

Defendant also contends that the district court and Plaintiff’s attorney had

conflicts of interest that should have barred their participation in the case below.

Defendant separately sued multiple judges and Plaintiff’s attorney for over $5

billion, but there is no evidence that Defendant’s separate lawsuit created a conflict

of interest requiring recusal here. See Ignacio v. Judges of the U.S. Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 453 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th Cir. 2006) (explaining that

a judge would need to recuse if she were “a party to the proceeding” or for other

reasons outlined by statute (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(i))).

Defendant also raises additional arguments in his reply brief: that the newly

offered report of Defendant’s expert should be considered, and that he is entitled to

a trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment. We do not consider matters not

specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v.

Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 24-6587