NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LYLE MARK COULTAS, No. 16-35704
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00045-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STEVEN PAYNE, individually and in his
official capacity as Oregon State Crime
Laboratory Detective; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
John V. Acosta, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted October 23, 2017***
Before: McKEOWN, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Lyle Mark Coultas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of due process,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
conversion under state law, and an independent claim of fraud on the court. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the
basis of the applicable statute of limitations and for failure to state a claim under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ventura Mobilehome Cmtys. Owners Ass’n v. City of San
Buenaventura, 371 F.3d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). We may affirm on any basis
supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir.
2008). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Coultas’s conversion claim as barred
by the Oregon Tort Claims Act’s (“OTCA”) two-year statute of limitations. See
Or. Rev. Stat. § 30.275(9); Bell v. Tri–Cty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or., 301 P.3d
901, 908 (Or. 2013) (the OTCA supersedes statutes of limitations that might
otherwise apply in tort actions against public bodies and their officers and
employees).
Dismissal of Coultas’s claim to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the
court was proper because Coultas failed to allege facts sufficient to state a
plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must still
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); see also
2 16-35704
Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“Fraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice.” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
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).
We reject as unsupported by the record Coultas’s contention concerning
judicial bias.
AFFIRMED.
3 16-35704