Pamela Denise Pringle v. Brent Cardall;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAMELA DENISE PRINGLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BRENT CARDALL; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 19-16914
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-02035-WBS-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2021**
Before: FERNANDEZ, BYBEE, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Pamela Denise Pringle appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing certain defendants in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations. Because the district court certified its interlocutory order
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we have jurisdiction under 28
* 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). Pringle’s request for oral
argument, set forth in the opening and reply briefs, is denied.
FILED
FEB 23 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 19-16914
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction.
CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1073 (9th Cir. 2011).
We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Pringle’s claims against defendants
Sandy Jones, Amanda Gentry, Noel Barlow-Hust, Judy Mesick, Cindy McDonald,
Mark Kubinski, and Elisa Magnuson for lack of personal jurisdiction because
Pringle failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that these defendants had
sufficient minimum contacts with California to provide the court with specific
personal jurisdiction over these defendants. See id. at 1076-77 (discussing
requirements for specific personal jurisdiction); see also Morrill v. Scott Fin.
Corp., 873 F.3d 1136, 1146 (9th Cir. 2017) (personal jurisdiction is improper if
“the forum state was only implicated by the happenstance of [plaintiff’s]
residence”).
Pringle’s motion for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 26) is denied.
Pringle’s motion for an expedited ruling (Docket Entry No. 41) is denied as
moot.
Defendants’ request for appellate attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in the
answering brief, is denied without prejudice. See Fed. R. App. P. 38 (requiring a
separate motion for fees and costs); Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556
F.3d 815, 828 (9th Cir. 2009) (a request made in an appellate brief does not satisfy

-- 2 of 3 --

3 19-16914
Rule 38).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --