Opinion
No. 18-55952
01-15-2020
JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY; HILDA TOBIAS KENNEDY, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE ESTATE OF MARILYN MONROE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-05038-FMO-SS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge, Presiding Before: CALLAHAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Hilda Tobias Kennedy appeal pro se from the district court's orders dismissing their action alleging claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and parental adjudication. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal of an action as frivolous. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing plaintiffs' action as frivolous because the action lacked an arguable basis either in law or in fact. See id. at 31-33 (discussing the meaning of "frivolousness").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting plaintiffs' motion to withdraw their requests to proceed in forma pauperis. See Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1223 (9th Cir. 2007) (setting forth standard of review for district court's enforcement of local rules and explaining that "[b]road deference is given to a district court's interpretation of its local rules").
Plaintiffs' motion to supplement the record on appeal is denied. See Gonzalez v. United States, 814 F.3d 1022, 1031 (9th Cir. 2016) ("Absent extraordinary circumstances, we generally do not permit parties to supplement the record on appeal.").
AFFIRMED.