JOHN KENNEDY V. THE ESTATE OF MARILYN MONROE, No. 18-55952 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED JAN 15 2020 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY; HILDA TOBIAS KENNEDY, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-55952 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05038-FMO-SS Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM* v. THE ESTATE OF MARILYN MONROE; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Submitted January 8, 2020** Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Hilda Tobias Kennedy appeal pro se from the district court’s orders dismissing their action alleging claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and parental adjudication. We have * 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s dismissal of an action as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs’ action as frivolous because the action lacked an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See id. at 31-33 (discussing the meaning of “frivolousness”). The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiffs’ motion to withdraw their requests to proceed in forma pauperis. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review for district court’s enforcement of local rules and explaining that “[b]road deference is given to a district court’s interpretation of its local rules”). Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied. See Gonzalez v. United States, 814 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Absent extraordinary circumstances, we generally do not permit parties to supplement the record on appeal.”). AFFIRMED. 2 18-55952

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.