Ronald Staton v. Lyle Hosoda ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-16134
Plaintiff, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00319-ACK-KSC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
RONALD B. STATON; BRENDA L.
STATON,
Defendants-Appellants,
and
NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION; et al.,
Defendants,
______________________________
LYLE S. HOSODA,
Receiver-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Helen W. Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
*
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).
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Ronald B. Staton and Brenda L. Staton appeal pro se from the district court’s
order denying their “emergency motion for injunction” and striking the Statons’
notice of lis pendens in this judicial foreclosure action arising out of the Statons’
failure to pay federal taxes. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by striking sua sponte the
Statons’ notice of lis pendens. See Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d
402-04 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and noting the district
court’s “power to strike items from the docket as a sanction for litigation
conduct”); see also Haw. Rev. Stat. § 507D-7(a) (describing process for
expungement of improper liens).
The district court properly denied the Statons’ “emergency motion for
injunction” because the Statons failed to show that the foreclosure commissioner’s
detention of their personal property after the Statons failed to vacate their house
pursuant to court orders was improper. See Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc.,
555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008) (listing the requirements for the issuance of a preliminary
injunction); Graham v. Teledyne-Cont’l Motors, a Div. of Teledyne Indus., Inc.,
805 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard of review).
2 18-16134
In their opening brief, the Statons state that they also intended to appeal
from the district court’s order denying their “emergency motion to vacate order
and writ of assistance” entered on May 11, 2018. We do not consider this order
because the Statons failed to identify this order in their notice of appeal. See Fed.
R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B).
AFFIRMED.
3 18-16134