James Williams v. Metropolitan Water District ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 19 2022
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JAMES LEE WILLIAMS,                             No. 21-15908
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00030-DWL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted April 11, 2022**
    Before:      McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
    James Lee Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging
    various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review
    de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Axiom Foods,
    *
    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).
    Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 
    874 F.3d 1064
    , 1067 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action for lack of personal
    jurisdiction because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that
    Metropolitan Water District had such continuous and systematic contacts with
    Arizona to establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient claim-related
    contacts with Arizona to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction. See
    Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 
    851 F.3d 1015
    , 1020-25 (9th Cir. 2017)
    (discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); Ranza v.
    Nike, Inc., 
    793 F.3d 1059
    , 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears the burden of
    establishing that the court possesses personal jurisdiction over the defendant).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
    v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Williams’s opposed motion invoking the continuing violations doctrine
    (Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      21-15908
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-15908

Filed Date: 4/19/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/19/2022