NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 4 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON RAISER, No. 14-55835
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00254-RGK-
AGR
v.
DOUG LARGE, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 21, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Aaron Raiser appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying his
motion to amend his civil rights complaint to add claims of fraud, intentional
misrepresentation, and false promise, arising from his expulsion from Ventura
College of Law. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
*
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).
abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to deny leave to amend. Chappel v.
Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725 (9th Cir. 2000). We affirm.
Because Raiser cannot allege facts sufficient to establish promissory fraud as
against defendant Large, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Raiser’s motion to amend his complaint. Thus, his proposed amendments, each of
which sound in fraud, would have been futile. See id. at 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000)
(“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when
amendment would be futile[.]”); see also Lazar v. Superior Court, 909 P.2d 981,
985 (Cal. 1996) (setting forth the elements of promissory fraud).
We lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s order denying Raiser’s
June 23, 2014 motion, which the district court construed as a motion for
reconsideration, because Raiser failed to file an amended or separate notice of
appeal. See Whitaker v. Garcetti, 486 F.3d 572, 585 (9th Cir. 2007).
Raiser’s request to certify the questions at issue to the California Supreme
Court, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55835