COULTAS v. TICHENOR (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal on the basis of res judicata. Stewart v. U.S. Bancorp., 297 F.3d 953, 956 (9th Cir. 2002). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

Dismissal of Coultas’s action to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court was proper because Coultas failed to allege facts sufficient to state a claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Fraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Coultas’s contentions regarding judicial misconduct.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.