Andrew Wolf v. Robin Sandy

Ninth Circuit

Andrew Wolf v. Robin Sandy

649 F. App'x 499

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 2, 2016

Docket14-36041

StatusUnpublished

This text of 649 F. App'x 499 (Andrew Wolf v. Robin Sandy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Andrew Wolf v. Robin Sandy, 649 F. App'x 499 (9th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Andrew J. J. Wolf, an Idaho state prison: er, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wolfs action because Wolf failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc,, 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir.2012) (a private entity is liable under § 1983 only if a constitutional violation was caused by an official policy or custom); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wolf leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wolfs motion to alter, amend, vacate or. reconsider the final judgment because Wolf failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, *500 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-68 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM ***

Andrew J. J. Wolf, an Idaho state prison: er, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Wolfs action because Wolf failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc,, 698 F.3d 1128, 1139 (9th Cir.2012) (a private entity is liable under § 1983 only if a constitutional violation was caused by an official policy or custom); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1207-08 (9th Cir.2011) (a supervisor is liable under § 1983 only if he or she is personally involved in the constitutional deprivation or there is a “sufficient causal connection between the supervisor’s wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir.2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wolf leave to amend because amendment would have been futile. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir.2000) (en banc) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Wolfs motion to alter, amend, vacate or. reconsider the final judgment because Wolf failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, *500 Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-68 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)).

AFFIRMED.

***

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

Herman Resnick v. Warden Hayes Lt. Ernst Officer Myers (Dho) Counselor Aune Officer Wade

213 F.3d 443 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Laurie Tsao v. Desert Palace, Inc.

698 F.3d 1128 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)

Lopez v. Smith

203 F.3d 1122 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Starr v. Baca

652 F.3d 1202 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)