William Green v. USA

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 24, 2024

Docket23-35380

StatusUnpublished

This text of William Green v. USA (William Green v. USA) 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

William Green v. USA, (9th Cir. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM L. GREEN, No. 23-35380

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05249-BHS

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted December 17, 2024**

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

William L. Green, a former lieutenant in the United States Navy, appeals pro

se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under the

Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of the Department of the Navy’s

denial of his application to correct his military record. We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Green failed to address the grounds for the district’s

summary judgment and therefore has waived any such challenge. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that

“we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s

opening brief”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Green’s motion to

strike the government’s motion for summary judgment. See FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d

944, 954-55, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and explaining

that a district court has broad discretion to control its docket).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Green’s post-

judgment motions because Green failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and bases for reconsideration).

We reject as unsupported by the record Green’s contentions that the district

court’s judgment was the result of fraud or bias.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35380

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 DEC 24 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM L. GREEN, No. 23-35380

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-05249-BHS

v. MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Submitted December 17, 2024**

Before: WALLACE, GRABER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.

William L. Green, a former lieutenant in the United States Navy, appeals pro

se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under the

Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of the Department of the Navy’s

denial of his application to correct his military record. We have jurisdiction under

* 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). 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.

In his opening brief, Green failed to address the grounds for the district’s

summary judgment and therefore has waived any such challenge. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (explaining that

“we will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s

opening brief”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Green’s motion to

strike the government’s motion for summary judgment. See FTC v. Gill, 265 F.3d

944, 954-55, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and explaining

that a district court has broad discretion to control its docket).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Green’s post-

judgment motions because Green failed to establish any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and bases for reconsideration).

We reject as unsupported by the record Green’s contentions that the district

court’s judgment was the result of fraud or bias.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 23-35380

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Federal Trade Commission v. Keith H. Gill Richard Murkey

265 F.3d 944 (Ninth Circuit, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

William Green v. USA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-green-v-usa-ca9-2024.