Harrison v. Willoughby
- Proceeding
- appeal
- Trial court
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- Trial judge
- Roger T. Benitez (district judge)
- Outcome
- affirmed — AFFIRMED.
- Area
- civil
- Appeal from
- Harrison v. Willoughby (2025-05-02) — the district court's order on this docket in the record
Analysis
No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.
Opinion
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 31 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LYLE ROGER HARRISON, No. 25-3470 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-02369-BEN-KSC Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* FLOYD M. WILLOUGHBY; U.S. BANCORP; JEREMY J. RICHEY; JOHN OR JANE DOES, 1-9, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Roger T. Benitez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 25, 2026** Before: SILVERMAN, N.R. SMITH, and DE ALBA, Circuit Judges.
Lyle Roger Harrison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as frivolous his action alleging civil rights claims arising from an estate dispute and criminal prosecution in Illinois. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
* 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). § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing as frivolous Harrison’s action because the complaint lacked any arguable basis in law or fact.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (requiring dismissal of a frivolous complaint filed in forma pauperis); Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989) (explaining that a complaint “is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Harrison’s complaint without leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir.
2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
AFFIRMED.
2 25-3470