Jesse Graham v. Cable News Network, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JESSE GRAHAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CABLE NEWS NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 22-55134
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07417-MCS-AGR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Jesse Graham appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his copyright action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute or comply with a court
order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
* 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).
FILED
DEC 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-55134
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Graham’s action
because Graham failed to respond to an order to show cause as to why the action
should not be dismissed for Graham’s falsification of the summons, and Graham
failed to effect proper service of process on defendant, despite receiving repeated
notice of the deficiencies in his proofs of service. See id. at 642-43 & n. 4 (listing
factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order; a
district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm
conviction” that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendant’s motion
to set aside the entry of default and denying Graham’s motion for default judgment
because the record supports the district court’s conclusion that service of process
was insufficient. See Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs.,
Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A federal court does not have jurisdiction
over a defendant unless the defendant has been served properly under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 4.”); see also SEC v. Internet Sols. for Bus. Inc., 509 F.3d 1161, 1165 (9th Cir.
2007) (district court’s factual findings regarding jurisdiction are reviewed for clear
error); O’Connor v. Nevada, 27 F.3d 357, 364 (9th Cir. 1994) (discussing district
court’s “especially broad” discretion to set aside an entry of default and discussing
relevant factors); Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471 (9th Cir. 1986) (setting

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-55134
forth standard of review for denial of default judgment).
Graham’s motion regarding the answering brief (Docket Entry No. 13) is
denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --