JOHN DUTTON V. MUELLER & DRURY PC, No. 17-16202 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 23 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN M. DUTTON, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-16202 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00069-JJT v. MEMORANDUM* MUELLER & DRURY PC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 18, 2017** Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. John M. Dutton appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s * 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). dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1040 (9th Cir. 2011). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Dutton’s action because Dutton failed to allege facts sufficient to show a qualifying “debt” and that Dutton is a “consumer” under the FDCPA. See 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(3), (5) (defining “consumer” and “debt” under the FDCPA). The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes, 656 F.3d at 1041 (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile); see also Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502, 510-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that an FDCPA claim based on an alleged violation of the Bankruptcy Code is precluded because the sole remedy “lies in the Bankruptcy Code”). We reject as unsupported by the record Dutton’s contention that the district judge was biased. AFFIRMED. 2 17-16202

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.