Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Pamela Denise PRINGLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brent CARDALL; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-16914

Decided: February 23, 2021

Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges. Pamela Denise Pringle, Pro Se Derick Konz, John A. Whitesides, Esquire, Attorney, Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants - Appellees Brent Cardall, County of Yolo John R. Goodell, Attorney, Racine Olson Nye Budge & Bailey, Chtd., Boise, ID, for Defendants - Appellees Amanda Gentry, Sandy Jones, Noel Barlow-Hust, Cindy McDonald, Mark Alan Kubinski, Elisa Sue Magnuson, Judy Mesick


Pamela Denise Pringle appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing certain defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional violations. Because the district court certified its interlocutory order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Pringle's claims against defendants Sandy Jones, Amanda Gentry, Noel Barlow-Hust, Judy Mesick, Cindy McDonald, Mark Kubinski, and Elisa Magnuson for lack of personal jurisdiction because Pringle failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that these defendants had sufficient minimum contacts with California to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction over these defendants. See id. at 1076-77 (discussing requirements for specific personal jurisdiction); see also Morrill v. Scott Fin. Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2017) (personal jurisdiction is improper if “the forum state was only implicated by the happenstance of [plaintiff's] residence”).

Pringle's motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.

Pringle's motion for an expedited ruling (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied as moot.

Defendants’ request for appellate attorney's fees and costs, set forth in the answering brief, is denied without prejudice. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (requiring a separate motion for fees and costs); Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 828 (9th Cir. 2009) (a request made in an appellate brief does not satisfy Rule 38).


Copied to clipboard