Renardo Robertson v. Catholic Community Services of Western Washington

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-35965
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED MAY 23 2023 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RENARDO D. ROBERTSON; DONNA No. 22-35965 ROBERTSON, individually and their marital community, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00827-JHC

Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v.

CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES OF WESTERN WASHINGTON, a Washington public benefit corporation; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John H. Chun, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 16, 2023**

Before: BENNETT, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Renardo D. Robertson and Donna Robertson appeal pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction their action

* 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). alleging various claims arising out of a prior federal court action. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip., Inc., 741

F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported by the

record. 1 Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of the Robertsons’ claim against defendant Catholic Community

Services of Western Washington to set aside a judgment for fraud on the court was

proper because the Robertsons failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible

claim. See United States v. Beggerly, 524 U.S. 38, 47 (1998) (concluding that “an

independent action should be available only to prevent a grave miscarriage of

justice”); United States v. Sierra Pac. Indus., Inc., 862 F.3d 1157, 1167-68 (9th

Cir. 2017) (“In determining whether fraud constitutes fraud on the court, the

relevant inquiry is not whether fraudulent conduct prejudiced the opposing party,

but whether it harmed the integrity of the judicial process.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)); Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d

769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting forth standard of review for an independent action

to set aside a prior judgment).

1 Although the district court dismissed the action under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, we affirm dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. See Al-Qarqani v. Chevron Corp., 8 F.4th 1018, 1027 (9th Cir. 2021).

2 22-35965 The district court did not err in dismissing the Robertsons’ claims against

defendants Lou-Magnuson, Reilly, and Moody because criminal statutes and the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not give rise to private rights of action. See 28

U.S.C. § 1331; Cent. Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver,

N.A., 511 U.S. 164, 190 (1994) (explaining that criminal statutes generally do not

give rise to private rights of action); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter,

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” (citation and

internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying further leave to

amend the complaint because the Robertsons’ proposed second amended complaint

failed to cure the deficiencies of the first amended complaint. See Cervantes v.

Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth

standard of review; leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be

futile); Miller v. Yokohama Tire Corp., 358 F.3d 616, 622 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Where

the plaintiff has previously filed an amended complaint . . . the district court’s

discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.” (citation and internal

quotation marks omitted)).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-35965