JOHNNY LAWRENCE V. JAMIE KRAHNE, No. 17-16119 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHNNY M. LAWRENCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16119 D.C. No. 2:16-cv-00762-JCM-VCF v. MEMORANDUM* JAMIE KRAHNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 26, 2017** Before: SILVERMAN, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Johnny M. Lawrence appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to prior state court proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a denial of a motion for default judgment. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Huynh, 503 * 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). F.3d 847, 852 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Lawrence’s motions for default judgment because Lawrence never properly served the summons and complaint on defendants. See Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 974-75 (9th Cir. 2013) (“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider the district court’s dismissal of Lawrence’s action for insufficient service of process because Lawrence does not raise this issue in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (“This court will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in appellant’s opening brief.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). We do not consider the merits of Lawrence’s claims because the district court did not address them. AFFIRMED. 2 17-16119

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.