NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 21 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD MORRISON, No. 14-17414
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:14-cv-01604-VC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN F. DIETZ; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Vince G. Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2016**
Before: HAWKINS, N.R. SMITH, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Richard Morrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process violations arising from
the seizure and sale of his property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
We review de novo. Brayton Purcell LLP v. Recordon & Recordon, 606 F.3d
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 2010) (dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction); Rhoades v.
Avon Products, Inc., 504 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal for failure to
state a claim under Federal Rule of Procedure 12(b)(6)). We may affirm on any
basis supported by the record. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534
F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action against defendant Neustrom
because Morrison failed to establish that the district court had specific personal
jurisdiction over him. See Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1122-23 (2014) (the
relationship between the non-resident defendant and the forum must arise out of
contacts that the defendant himself creates with the forum); Schwarzenegger v.
Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 807 (9th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of
complaint against non-resident defendant for lack of personal jurisdiction because
he did not expressly aim any acts towards forum state).
Dismissal of the action against defendants Dietz and Guidry was proper
because Morrison failed to allege facts sufficient to show that Dietz and Guidry
acted under color of state law. See Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922,
940-41 (1982) (private misuse of a state statute is not actionable under § 1983).
We do not consider arguments that were not presented to the district court.
2 14-17414
See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (declining to consider
arguments not raised below).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-17414