Frank Gallardo Thunder Hawk v. Mykal Cramer ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK GALLARDO THUNDER HAWK, No. 19-35302
AKA Frank Ray Gallardo, AKA Frank
Thunder Hawk Gallardo, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00004-DCB
Plaintiff-Appellant,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
MYKAL CRAMER, United States Marshal;
DAVID HICKMAN, United States Marshal,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Frank Gallardo Thunder Hawk appeals pro se from the district court’s order
finding that the parties’ settlement agreement rendered his appeal to this court
moot. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
*
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).
determination of mootness, and for clear error the factual determination underlying
the mootness determination. Rosebrock v. Mathis, 745 F.3d 963, 970 n.8 (9th Cir.
2014). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s enforcement of a
settlement agreement. Doi v. Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir.
2002). We affirm.
Thunder Hawk does not dispute that, after he filed this appeal, the parties
entered into a valid settlement agreement releasing defendants from liability
regarding Thunder Hawk’s claims. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
determination that Thunder Hawk’s appeal of its order granting summary judgment
is moot. See Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125, 1129-32 (9th Cir.
2005) (en banc) (a claim is moot where “changes in the circumstances that
prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for
meaningful relief” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that defendants
did not violate the terms of the settlement agreement. See 31 U.S.C. § 3716(a) (the
Treasury Offset Program assigns the responsibility of notifying the debtor to the
creditor agency); 31 C.F.R. § 285.5(c)(2) (requiring the U.S. Treasury, as the
dispersing official under the Treasury Offset Program, to “offset the payment to
satisfy, in whole or part, the payee’s debt to the extent allowed by law”).
We do not decide whether Thunder Hawk has a remedy for his offset claims
2 19-35302
through a separate action against the U.S. Treasury or the creditor federal agency.
Thunder Hawk’s motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 33) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 19-35302