Randell Turner v. Adalberto Alberto ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED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. § 1983claims. 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