James Lee Williams v. Metropolitan Water District

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JAMES LEE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15908
D.C. No. 2:21-cv-00030-DWL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 11, 2022**
Before: McKEOWN, CHRISTEN, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
James Lee Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing for lack of personal jurisdiction his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2). Axiom Foods,
* 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
APR 19 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15908
Inc. v. Acerchem Int’l, Inc., 874 F.3d 1064, 1067 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Williams’s action for lack of personal
jurisdiction because Williams failed to allege facts sufficient to establish that
Metropolitan Water District had such continuous and systematic contacts with
Arizona to establish general personal jurisdiction, or sufficient claim-related
contacts with Arizona to provide the court with specific personal jurisdiction. See
Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1020-25 (9th Cir. 2017)
(discussing requirements for general and specific personal jurisdiction); Ranza v.
Nike, Inc., 793 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing that the court possesses personal jurisdiction over the defendant).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief or allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett
v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Williams’s opposed motion invoking the continuing violations doctrine
(Docket Entry No. 3) is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --