JAMES LINLOR V. WILLIAM WHETSELL, No. 18-17206 (9th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 27 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAMES LINLOR, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-17206 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00096-MMDCBC v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM WHETSELL, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 19, 2019** Before: SCHROEDER, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. James Linlor appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), against a Transportation Security Administration supervisor for failure to collect and preserve evidence of an excessive force * 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). incident. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Ochoa v. J.B. Martin & Sons Farms, Inc., 287 F.3d 1182, 1187 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Linlor’s action because Linlor failed to allege facts sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over defendant Whetsell. See Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277, 283-86 (2014) (discussing the requirements for specific personal jurisdiction and explaining that “the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum”); Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 801 (9th Cir. 2004) (requirements for general personal jurisdiction); see also Gilbert v. DaGrossa, 756 F.2d 1455, 1460 (9th Cir. 1985) (28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) “does not apply to actions for money damages brought against federal officials in their individual capacities”). Linlor’s requests for publication and transfer to the Eastern District of Virginia, set forth in the reply brief, are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-17206

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.