Richard Green v. Dinh Hoang Phuong ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-35279

Filed Date: 8/30/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/30/2023