Steven Kneizys v. Fdic

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: August 28, 2024
• Docket: 23-35276
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 28 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN KNEIZYS, No. 23-35276

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01402-RSL

v. MEMORANDUM* FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Washington Mutual Bank, Henderson, Nevada; ELIZABETH RICE; NORMAN R. MORRISON, Jr.; FRANKLIN H. MORRISON; JAMES BOHANON; JAMES MCLAUGHLIN; VICKI MCLAUGHLIN; RONALD V. RICE,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 20, 2024**

Before: S.R. THOMAS, RAWLINSON, and COLLINS, Circuit Judges.

Steven Kneizys appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment

* 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). in his action against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as

receiver for Washington Mutual Bank arising out of a dispute over land in Maine.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Desire, LLC v.

Manna Textiles, Inc., 986 F.3d 1253, 1259 (9th Cir. 2021) (summary judgment);

Olson Farms, Inc. v. Barbosa, 134 F.3d 933, 936 (9th Cir. 1998) (the district

court’s determination of subject matter jurisdiction). We vacate the judgment and

remand with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

Kneizys’s claim seeking reformation of a deed.

The district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Kneizys’s claim

seeking reformation of a deed because Kneizys failed to file a timely

administrative claim under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and

Enforcement Act of 1989 (“FIRREA”). See 12 U.S.C. § 1821(d)(3)-(10), (13)(D)

(setting forth FIRREA’s administrative claims process and providing that courts

lack jurisdiction over claims that have not been exhausted through this process);

Intercontinental Travel Mktg., Inc. v. FDIC, 45 F.3d 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 1994)

(concluding that FIRREA’s claims bar date is a jurisdictional requirement). We

vacate the district court’s summary judgment for the FDIC on Kneizys’s

reformation claim and remand with instructions to dismiss the claim for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

We reject as unsupported by the record Kneizys’s contentions that the

2 23-35276 district court denied him due process or was biased against him.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925,

929 (9th Cir. 2003).

The parties will bear their own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED with instructions.

3 23-35276