Richard Morrison v. John Dietz

Ninth Circuit

Richard Morrison v. John Dietz

658 F. App'x 328

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedSeptember 21, 2016

Docket14-17414

StatusUnpublished

This text of 658 F. App'x 328 (Richard Morrison v. John Dietz) 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

Richard Morrison v. John Dietz, 658 F. App'x 328 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*329 MEMORANDUM **

Richard Morrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from the seizure and sale of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction); Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6)). 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.

The district court properly dismissed the action against defendant Neustrom because Morrison failed to establish that the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over him. See Walden v. Fiore, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1122-23, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (the relationship between the non-resident defendant and the forum must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 807 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of complaint against nonresident defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction because he did not expressly aim any acts towards forum state).

Dismissal of the action against defendants Dietz and Guidry was proper because Morrison failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Dietz and Guidry acted under color of state law. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 940-41, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982) (private misuse of a state statute is not actionable under § 1983).

We do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider arguments not raised below).

AFFIRMED.

**

This 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

*329 MEMORANDUM **

Richard Morrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from the seizure and sale of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction); Rhoades v. Avon Products, Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6)). 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.

The district court properly dismissed the action against defendant Neustrom because Morrison failed to establish that the district court had specific personal jurisdiction over him. See Walden v. Fiore, — U.S. -, 134 S.Ct. 1115, 1122-23, 188 L.Ed.2d 12 (2014) (the relationship between the non-resident defendant and the forum must arise out of contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 807 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of complaint against nonresident defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction because he did not expressly aim any acts towards forum state).

Dismissal of the action against defendants Dietz and Guidry was proper because Morrison failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Dietz and Guidry acted under color of state law. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., Inc., 457 U.S. 922, 940-41, 102 S.Ct. 2744, 73 L.Ed.2d 482 (1982) (private misuse of a state statute is not actionable under § 1983).

We do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider arguments not raised below).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

658 F. App'x 328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richard-morrison-v-john-dietz-ca9-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack