Court Opinion

ID: 9785045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:01:31.280524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:42:29.847719
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 30 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD LEE GREEN,                              No. 22-35279

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00261-JMK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
DINH HOANG PHUONG,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Alaska
                   Joshua M. Kindred, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Richard Lee Green appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction his action under the Hague

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Oct. 25, 1980,

T.I.A.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11 (“Convention”), as implemented by

      *
             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).
the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 9001, et seq. We

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Carolina Cas. Ins. Co. v. Team Equip.,

Inc., 741 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir. 2014). We may affirm on any basis supported

by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We

affirm.

      Dismissal of Green’s action was proper because Green did not allege facts

sufficient to show that his children were “habitually resident in a Contracting

State” because Indonesia is not a Convention signatory. See Convention, Art. 4

(providing that the Convention applies “to any child who was habitually resident in

a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access rights”);

U.S. Hague Convention Treaty Partners, Travel.State.Gov, https://travel.state.gov/

content/travel/en/International-Parental-Child-Abduction/abductions/hague-

abduction-country-list.html (listing contracting states to the Convention).

      We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                       22-35279