William Scheidler v. James Avery ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 14 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    WILLIAM SCHEIDLER,                              No.    15-35945
    Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:12-cv-05996-RBL
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JAMES AVERY, individually and in his
    official capacity as Kitsap County's
    Assessor; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 9, 2017**
    Before:      SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    William Scheidler appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
    dismissing with prejudice his action arising from the denial of a property tax
    exemption. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo.
    *
    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). Scheidler’s request for oral
    argument, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
    Hicks v. Small, 
    69 F.3d 967
    , 969 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal for failure to state a
    claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Stuewe v. Dep’t of Revenue, 
    991 P.2d 634
    ,
    636 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (proceedings before the Washington State Board of
    Tax Appeals). We affirm.
    The district court properly denied Scheidler’s state tax appeal because
    Scheidler failed to identify any error in the state tax agencies’ decisions. See
    Wash. Rev. Code §§ 34.05.570(3) (circumstances under which court may grant
    relief from agency decision), 84.36.383(5) (definition of “disposable income”).
    The district court properly dismissed Scheidler’s action because Scheidler
    failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
    
    556 U.S. 662
    , 678 (2009) (“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must
    contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
    plausible on its face.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scheidler leave to
    amend because amendment would have been futile. See U.S. ex rel. Lee v.
    Corinthian Colleges, 
    655 F.3d 984
    , 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of
    review).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Scheidler’s motion
    for recusal of the district judge because Scheidler failed to identify a ground for
    recusal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455; Pesnell v. Arsenault, 
    543 F.3d 1038
    , 1043 (9th
    2                                     15-35945
    Cir. 2008) (standard of review).
    We reject as meritless Scheidler’s contentions that the district court lacked
    authority to decide the motions to dismiss, that federal pleading standards are
    inapplicable, and that the district court failed to comply with this court’s prior
    mandate.
    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).
    To the extent Scheidler seeks reconsideration of this court’s prior order
    denying his petition for a writ of mandamus, see Scheidler v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W.
    Dist. Of Wash., Tacoma, No. 15-73135, his request is denied.
    Appellees Avery, Miles, Haberly, and George’s motion for sanctions
    (Docket No. 27) is denied. See Glanzman v. Uniroyal, Inc., 
    892 F.2d 58
    , 61 (9th
    Cir. 1989) (decision to award sanctions under Rule 38 is discretionary).
    Appellee Washington State Bar Association’s motion to take judicial notice
    (Docket No. 31) is granted.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                      15-35945