Raymond Ludwig Frost v. Dora B. Schriro;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RAYMOND LUDWIG FROST,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
DORA B. SCHRIRO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-17168
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01559-PGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012**
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Raymond Ludwig Frost appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First
Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
FILED
SEP 14 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-17168 2
for an abuse of discretion the district court’s application of judicial estoppel.
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778, 782 (9th Cir. 2001). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Frost’s claims on
the basis of judicial estoppel because Frost was aware of, but failed to disclose,
those claims during his bankruptcy proceedings, and the bankruptcy court relied on
the omission in initially granting a discharge. See id. at 784-85 (applying judicial
estoppel where debtor knowingly failed to disclose the existence of a cause of
action as an asset in a bankruptcy proceeding, and the bankruptcy court relied on
the nondisclosure).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --