Marshall Sanders v. Bank of America, N.A. ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 18 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARSHALL S. SANDERS, As Trustee of No. 16-55430
the Marshall and Lydia Sanders Trust Dated
April 20, 1990; LYDIA O. SANDERS, As D.C. No. 8:15-cv-00935-AG-AS
Trustee of the Marshall and Lydia Sanders
Trust Dated April 20, 1990,
MEMORANDUM*
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 11, 2017**
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
Marshall S. Sanders and Lydia O. Sanders appeal pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing their diversity action related to a deed of trust. We
*
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).
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm.
In the Sanders’ opening brief, the Sanders failed to address any of the
grounds for dismissal and have therefore waived their challenge to the district
court’s order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“[W]e review only issues which are argued specifically and distinctly
in a party’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted));
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 waived). Even if we were not to
consider waiver, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
Sanders’ action because the second amended complaint failed to set forth “a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that [the Sanders are] entitled to relief.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.
1996) (setting forth standard of review and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing
complaints . . . impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”); see also Bell Atl.
Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (Rule 8 requires a short and plain
statement of a claim that gives the defendant fair notice of the claim and its basis).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55430