DOUGLAS JOHNSON V. RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURAN, No. 15-35988 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 22 2017 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DOUGLAS JOHNSON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-35988 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01217-MJP MEMORANDUM* RELIANCE STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT ADMINISTRATOR, agent of Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 14, 2017** Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges. Douglas Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging breach of fiduciary duty under the Employee * 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). Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson failed to allege facts sufficient to show a plausible claim for relief under ERISA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B), 1132(a)(3); Gabriel v. Alaska Elec. Pension Fund, 773 F.3d 945, 954 (9th Cir. 2014) (requirements for a claim under § 1132(a)(3)); Pisciotta v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 91 F.3d 1326, 1331 (9th Cir. 1996) (requirements for equitable estoppel in an ERISA action). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Johnson’s motion for default judgment because the clerk never entered a default. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) (standard of review and factors for entry of default judgment). We reject as unsupported by the record Johnson’s contention that the district court was biased against him, and deny Johnson’s request, set forth in his opening brief, for appointment of counsel on remand. AFFIRMED. 2 15-35988

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.