NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GREGORY STESHENKO, No. 15-16379
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-04948-LHK
v.
GERALDINE M. ALBEE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
GREGORY STESHENKO, No. 15-16397
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:13-cv-03400-LHK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SUZANNE GAYRARD; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Lucy H. Koh, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Gregory Steshenko appeals pro se from the
district court’s orders dismissing for untrue allegations of poverty under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(A) his actions alleging claims under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act and other federal laws. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We affirm.
Under any potentially applicable standard of review, the district court did
not err in dismissing Steshenko’s actions on the basis of its finding that Steshenko
made untrue allegations of poverty because Steshenko failed to disclose on his
applications to proceed in forma pauperis that he owned a home. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(A) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the allegation of poverty is untrue[.]”); Adkins v. E.I. DuPont
de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 338 (1948) (explaining that the dismissal of an
action where the allegation of poverty is untrue is a “sanction[] to protect against
false affidavits”).
We reject as without merit Steshenko’s contention that the district court was
required to hold a hearing or oral argument before ruling on defendants’ motions to
dismiss. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).
We do not consider Steshenko’s challenges to Judge Seeborg’s rulings in an
unrelated action because they are not within the scope of this appeal.
2 15-16379
We do not consider Steshenko’s arguments regarding the disclosure of his
marital status on his applications to proceed in forma pauperis because the district
court did not reach that issue.
We do not consider issues 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.
3 15-16379