
    Douglas Luther MYSER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven TANGEN, Defendant; Spokane County, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 15-35169
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 22, 2016
    Douglas Luther Myser, Pro Se
    Steven Tangen, Pro Se
    Daniel Paul Crowner, Esquire, Attorney, Patterson Buchanan Fobes & Leitch, Inc., P.S., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Myser’s request for oral argument, set forth in his reply brief, is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Douglas Luther Myser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging fraud on the court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal of an independent action to set aside a prior judgment for fraud on the court. Appling v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 340 F.3d 769, 780 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court did not- abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s action for failure to state a claim because the alleged perjury by witnesses and mischaracterization of the relevant legal standard by Spokane’s attorneys do not amount to fraud on the court. See id. (explaining that “[fjraud on the court requires a grave miscarriage of justice” and “perjury by a party or witness, does not, by itself, amount to fraud on the court” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also United States v. Estate of Stonehill, 660 F.3d 415, 444 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Most fraud on the court cases involve a scheme by one party to hide a key fact from the court and the opposing party.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Myser’s amended complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See Zueco Partners, LLC v. Digimarc Corp., 552 F.3d 981, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and stating that district court may deny leave to amend when plaintiff has failed to cure deficiencies by previous amendments and further amendment would be futile).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     