Court Opinion

ID: 9955890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 18:00:51.508718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:39.968903
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         MAR 29 2024
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                         U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL SMITH,                                   No. 23-55030

                Plaintiff-Appellant,             D.C. No. 3:22-cv-00798-DMS-BGS

 v.
                                                 MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of California
                     Dana M. Sabraw, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 26, 2024**

Before:      TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and KOH, Circuit Judges.

      Michael Smith appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action brought under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) seeking to

collaterally attack his criminal conviction entered in the Eastern District of

Kentucky. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse

      *
             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). Smith’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the reply brief, is denied.
of discretion. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th

Cir. 2003). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Johnson v.

Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

      Dismissal of Smith’s action against the United States was proper because

Smith failed to allege facts sufficient to show an explicit waiver of sovereign

immunity. See Elias v. Connett, 908 F.2d 521, 527 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Absent its

consent to suit, an action against the United States must be dismissed.”);

Cominotto v. United States, 802 F.2d 1127, 1129 (9th Cir. 1986) (“Waiver of

immunity must be demonstrated by the party suing the United States.”), abrogated

on other grounds by Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004).

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   23-55030