Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Wylmina Elizabeth HETTINGA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Does, 1 to 10; Walter P. Hammon, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM **
Wylmina Elizabeth Hettinga appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims arising from her divorce proceedings, as well as a tax refund claim resulting from the IRS's audit of her 2011-2013 tax returns. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)); Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1139 (9th Cir. 2004) (dismissal under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine); C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co., Inc. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474, 478 (9th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment). We affirm.
The district court properly granted summary judgment on Hettinga's tax refund claim because Hettinga failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the IRS's tax assessment was incorrect. See Ray v. United States, 762 F.2d 1361, 1362 (9th Cir. 1985) (discussing requirements for a tax refund claim); see also Block v. City of Los Angeles, 253 F.3d 410, 418-19 (9th Cir. 2001) (“To survive summary judgment, a party does not necessarily have to produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial, as long as the party satisfies the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56.”).
The district court properly dismissed Hettinga's § 1983 claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because these claims amounted to a de facto appeal of prior state court orders. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-65 (9th Cir. 2003) (discussing Rooker-Feldman doctrine).
The district court properly dismissed Hettinga's fraud claim because Hettinga failed to allege facts sufficient to satisfy the heightened pleading standard set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). See Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124-25 (9th Cir. 2009) (discussing heightened pleading standard under Rule 9(b)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing defendant Pamela Kennedy under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) because Hettinga failed to respond timely to the district court's order to show cause despite being warned failure to comply would result in Kennedy's dismissal. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing standard of review and factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Hettinga's motion to reconsider Kennedy's dismissal because Hettinga failed to set forth any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60).
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).
Hettinga's motions (Docket Entry Nos. 45 and 60) to file her opening brief and selected excerpts of record from Appeal No. 18-56650, and to file her supplemental briefs at Docket Entry Nos. 57 and 76, are granted. Defendant United States of America's motion to file a response to Hettinga's supplemental brief (Docket Entry No. 72) is granted. The Clerk will file the supplemental briefs submitted at Docket Entry Nos. 53, 57, 69 and 76.
All other pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 71, 74, 77, and 80) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
Response sent, thank you
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 19-55672
Decided: November 03, 2020
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)