Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0504-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johnny M. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jamie KRAHNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 17-16119
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted September 26, 2017 
    
    FILED October 3, 2017
    Johnny M. Lawrence, Pro se.
    Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Johnny M. Lawrence appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to prior state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for default judgment. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 503 F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lawrence’s motions for default judgment because Lawrence never properly served the summons and complaint on defendants. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a,defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Lawrence’s action for insufficient service of process because Lawrence does not raise this issue in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and' argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider the merits of Lawrence’s claims because the district court did not address them.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.