NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 22 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BILLY PUNCHARD, No. 17-16567
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00148-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND
MANAGEMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 13, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, M. SMITH, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Billy Punchard appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action arising from a mining lease located in New Mexico. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion
dismissal as a sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Sneller v. City of Bainbridge
*
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).
Island, 606 F.3d 636, 638 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Punchard’s
action as a Rule 11 sanction because Punchard failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) (requiring “short and plain statement of the
claim”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (by presenting a pleading to the court, unrepresented
party certifies that it is not being presented for an improper purpose and that the
claims are legally and factually supported).
We reject as meritless Punchard’s contentions regarding the timeliness of
defendant Luna County New Mexico Board of Commission’s answering brief, the
denial of Punchard’s “Praecipe Motion for Corrections,” and the district court’s
warnings that he may be subject to future sanctions for filing actions with obvious
defects.
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16567