ROLAND MA V. USC, No. 20-35370 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 16 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROLAND MA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-35370 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01112-JCC MEMORANDUM* U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendant, and UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington John C. Coughenour, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 2, 2020** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges. Roland Ma appeals pro se from the district court’s order holding him in civil * 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). contempt and imposing sanctions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s civil contempt order, and for clear error the underlying factual findings. FTC v. Affordable Media, 179 F.3d 1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). We affirm. The district court did not clearly err by concluding that Ma failed to demonstrate that he was unable to comply with the court’s October 16, 2019 order enforcing the parties’ settlement agreement. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by ordering civil contempt sanctions to coerce Ma to comply with the October 16, 2019 order. See id. (“The moving party has the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the contemnor[] violated a specific and definite order of the court. The burden then shifts to the contemnor[] to demonstrate why [he or she] w[as] unable to comply.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994) (“[C]ivil contempt sanctions, or those penalties designed to compel future compliance with a court order, are considered to be coercive and avoidable through obedience, and thus may be imposed in an ordinary civil proceeding upon notice and an opportunity to be heard.”). We reject as meritless Ma’s contentions that the district court’s enforcement of the settlement agreement was unconstitutional and that the settlement agreement violated due process. 2 20-35370 We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Ma’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 18) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 20-35370
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.
