Case Name: Douglas JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Matrix Absence Management Administrator, agent of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-22
Citations: 677 F. App'x 429
Docket Number: No. 15-35988
Parties: Douglas JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Matrix Absence Management Administrator, agent of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 429–430

Head Matter:
Douglas JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; Matrix Absence Management Administrator, agent of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-35988
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted February 14, 2017
Filed February 22, 2017
Douglas Johnson, Pro Se
Joshua Bachrach, Esquire, Wilson, El-ser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Philadelphia, PA, Robert B. Miller, Esquire, Attorney, Kilmer Voorhees & Laurick, P.C., Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appel-lees
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Douglas Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson's action because Johnson failed to allege facts sufficient to show a plausible claim for relief under ERISA. See 29 U.S.C, § 1132(a)(1)(B), 1132(a)(3); Gabriel v. Alaska Elec. Pension Fund, 773 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2014) (requirements for a claim under § 1132(a)(3)); Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirements for equitable estoppel in an ERISA action).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson's motion for default judgment because the clerk never entered a default. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard of review and factors for entry of default judgment).
We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson's contention that the district court was biased against him, and deny Johnson's request, set forth in his opening brief, for appointment of counsel on remand.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.