TERRY v. QUIJOTE (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-25No. No. 20-16203

Summary · law.co

Holding. The district court's dismissal of Terry's action for failure to comply with its order to amend the complaint to allege federal jurisdiction, and its denial of post-judgment motions, were affirmed.

Osiris Terry appealed the dismissal of his products liability lawsuit after he failed to comply with a district court order requiring him to file an amended complaint establishing federal jurisdiction. The appellate court reviewed whether the lower court abused its discretion in dismissing the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) and in denying Terry's post-judgment motions. The court found no abuse of discretion, concluding that Terry's noncompliance with the jurisdictional pleading requirement and failure to demonstrate grounds for relief supported the dismissal and denial of his subsequent motions.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether dismissal under Rule 41(b) was appropriate for failure to comply with court order
Whether denial of post-judgment motions for relief was proper
Standard of review for dismissal of pro se litigation

Procedural posture

Terry appealed pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his products liability action for noncompliance with a court order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Osiris C. Terry appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his products liability action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Terrys action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Terry failed to comply with the district courts order to file an amended complaint that alleged federal jurisdiction over his claims. See id. at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action should be dismissed under Rule 41(b) and requiring “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” to overturn such a dismissal (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Terrys post-judgment motions because Terry failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Lemoge v. United States, 587 F.3d 1188, 1191-92 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and discussing factors for excusable neglect under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1)); Zimmerman v. City of Oakland, 255 F.3d 734, 740 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review and discussing factors for granting a motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.