PUNCHARD v. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Billy Punchard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action arising from a mining lease located in New Mexico. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Sneller v. City of Bainbridge Island, 606 F.3d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Punchard’s action as a Rule 11 sanction because Punchard failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (requiring “short and plain statement of the claim”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (by presenting a pleading to the court, unrepresented party certifies that it is not being presented for an improper purpose and that the claims are legally and factually supported).

We reject as meritless Punchard’s contentions regarding the timeliness of defendant Luna County New Mexico Board of Commission’s answering brief, the denial of Punchard’s “Praecipe Motion for Corrections,” and the district court’s warnings that he may be subject to future sanctions for filing actions with obvious defects.

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).

AFFIRMED.