Court Opinion

ID: 9380402
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 22:00:31.527905+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:24.796424
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 17 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RANDELL LOWELL JAMES TURNER,                    No. 21-16860

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:20-cv-02980-JD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
ADALBERTO ALBERTO; CHARLES
AQUINO; BRIDGETTE DENEED;
DANIEL DEJONG; VICTOR DERTING;
LUIS ESCAMILLA; FRAGA, Officer;
DARRYL C. MCALLISTER; JON
PERSINGER; MICHAEL SEARS; RYAN
SETO; SHANSAB, Sgt.; SILVA, Officer;
SIRA, Officer; SONSUP, Sgt.; JEFF
STEWART; JOSHUA VASICEK;
WILSON, Officer; KIRK WU; CITY OF
UNION CITY,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                    James Donato, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted March 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

      *
             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).
      Randell Lowell James Turner appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims arising from

his arrest in 2017. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo a district court’s denial of a motion to remand to state court for lack of

federal subject matter jurisdiction. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d

845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020). We affirm.

      The district court properly denied Turner’s motion to remand because

defendants timely removed the action after receiving service and because the

district court had federal question jurisdiction over Turner’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983

claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (removal jurisdiction); id. § 1446 (procedure for

removal of civil actions); id. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction).

      In his opening brief, Turner fails to address the grounds for dismissal and

has therefore waived his challenge to the district court’s judgment. See Indep.

Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not

consider any claims that were not actually argued in appellant’s opening brief.”);

Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir. 1993) (issues not supported by

argument in pro se appellant’s opening brief are deemed abandoned).

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Turner’s motion to

vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) because Turner failed to

establish grounds warranting relief. See Casey v. Albertson’s Inc., 362 F.3d 1254,

                                           2                                      21-16860
1257, 1260 (9th Cir. 2004) (setting forth standard of review and Rule 60(b)(3)

motion requirements).

       We reject as meritless Turner’s Rule 60(b)(4) contention that the district

court’s judgment was void.

       Turner’s request to sanction defendants’ counsel, set forth in his opening

brief, is denied.

       AFFIRMED.

                                          3                                   21-16860