Eugene Beauregard; Susan Beauregard v. Lewis County, Washington;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENE BEAUREGARD; SUSAN
BEAUREGARD,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
LEWIS COUNTY, WASHINGTON; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 11-35731
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00638-RBL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Eugene and Susan Beauregard appeal pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
violations in connection with their development of a parcel of land. We have
FILED
DEC 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 4 --

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Johnson v. Knowles,
113 F.3d 1114, 1117 (9th Cir. 1997). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the Beauregards’ action because the
Beauregards failed to allege sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief. See
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
Galen v. County of Los Angeles, 477 F.3d 652, 667 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing
requirements for municipal liability under § 1983); Johnson, 113 F.3d at 1117-20
(explaining the requirements of a claim for relief under § 1983, including state
actorship).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Beauregards’
request for leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See
Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30 (9th Cir.
2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be
denied if amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendant Lewis
County’s motion for change of venue. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) (listing grounds
11-35731 2

-- 2 of 4 --

for venue), 1404(a)-(b) (concerning change of venue); Jones v. GNC Franchising,
Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a pre-filing
restriction on the Beauregards as vexatious litigants, after giving them notice and
an opportunity to be heard, in light of their history of filing similar meritless
actions against Lewis County. See Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d
1047, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) (setting forth standard of review and
factors to be considered before the entry of a pre-filing order against a vexatious
litigant).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Beauregards’
motion to set aside the judgment in an earlier federal action. See Lyon v. Agusta
S.P.A., 252 F.3d 1078, 1082, 1088 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting forth standard of review
and noting that motion for relief from judgment on the basis of fraud must be
brought within one year of the judgment being attacked).
We do not consider whether the district court’s denial of the Beauregards’
request for a preliminary injunction was proper because that issue has “merged”
with the Beauregards’ substantive appeal regarding their claims. See SEC v. Mount
Vernon Mem’l Park, 664 F.2d 1358, 1361-62 (9th Cir. 1982).
11-35731 3

-- 3 of 4 --

The Beauregards’ request that defendants’ attorneys be sanctioned, set forth
in their opening brief, is denied.
The Beauregards’ motion for sanctions, filed on January 13, 2012, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
11-35731 4

-- 4 of 4 --