Lisa Yuan v. City of Los Angeles

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LISA YUAN, No. 12-55501
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01453-RSWL-
SP
v.
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, public entity; MEMORANDUM*
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Ronald S.W. Lew, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 18, 2014**
Before: ALARCÓN, O’SCANNLAIN, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Lisa Yuan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of her civil rights in connection with
her arrest and prosecution on misdemeanor criminal charges. We have jurisdiction
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s
decision to dismiss under the fugitive disentitlement doctrine. United States v.
$6,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 581 F.3d 881, 884 (9th Cir. 2009). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Yuan’s action
because the record showed that Yuan has a pending state criminal case and is a
fugitive from justice. See Molinaro v. New Jersey, 396 U.S. 365, 366 (1970)
(holding that a fugitive is disentitled from calling upon the resources of the court
for determination of their claims); see also $6,190.00 in U.S. Currency, 581 F.3d at
886 (applying fugitive disentitlement doctrine to fugitives from state proceedings);
Conforte v. Comm’r, 692 F.2d 587, 589-90 (9th Cir. 1982) (extending the fugitive
disentitlement doctrine to civil proceedings).
Yuan’s remaining contentions concerning an alleged fraud by the district
court, her alleged entitlement to a declaratory judgment, the district court’s
rejection of her notice of lien, and the denial of hearings to present and subpoena
evidence are unpersuasive.
Yuan’s motion requesting consideration and review of various records, filed
on June 17, 2013, is denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 10; Daly-Murphy v. Winston, 837
F.2d 348, 351 (9th Cir. 1987) (“[N]ormally the reviewing court will not
supplement the record on appeal with material not considered by the trial court.”).
2 12-55501
Yuan’s motions to expedite are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
3 12-55501