Jeremiah W. Balik v. Walt Disney Company;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMIAH W. BALIK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WALT DISNEY COMPANY; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56066
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-04906-GW-PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jeremiah W. Balik appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his diversity action alleging breach of contract. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d
1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Dominguez v.
* 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). Balik’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening brief, is denied.
FILED
AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56066
Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Balik’s complaint for failure to comply
with Rule 8(a)(2) because the allegations in the complaint were vague, confusing,
and failed to connect Balik’s claims to defendants’ conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80
(9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that failed to set forth simple,
concise and direct averments).
We reject as without merit Balik’s contention that he was prejudiced by
having Judge Wu preside over this matter.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009);
Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994) (“We will not manufacture
arguments for an appellant, and a bare assertion does not preserve a claim[.]”).
We do not consider documents and facts not presented to the district court.
See United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts
not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 27, 29, and 43) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --