Lyle Coultas v. Carroll Tichenor ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
JUN 10 2020
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LYLE MARK COULTAS, No. 19-35421
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:19-cv-00021-HZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CARROLL TICHENOR, Individually and
in his Official Capacity as a Yamhill County
Prosecutor; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Marco A. Hernandez, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging fraud on the court. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s
*
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).
dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp., 297 F.3d 953, 956
(9th Cir. 2002). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Dismissal of Coultas’s action to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the
court was proper because Coultas failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim.
See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se
pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual
allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Appling v. State
Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Fraud on the court
requires a grave miscarriage of justice.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Coultas’s contentions regarding
judicial misconduct.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 19-35421