Jimmy Moore v. Stephen Barttlet

Ninth Circuit

Jimmy Moore v. Stephen Barttlet

693 F. App'x 599

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 5, 2017

Docket16-35695

StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 599 (Jimmy Moore v. Stephen Barttlet) 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

Jimmy Moore v. Stephen Barttlet, 693 F. App'x 599 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM ***

Jimmy C. Moore, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C, § 1983 *600 action alleging various constitutional violations arising out of the mishandling of his legal documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s action because Moore failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Lewis v. Casey, 618 U.S. 343, 349, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 136 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 535, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful post-deprivation remedies); see also Idaho Code § 6-901 (Idaho Tort Claims Act) (2016).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore’s amended complaint without further leave to amend. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Moore’s motions for reconsideration because Moore failed to state any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

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

AFFIRMED.

***

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

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

MEMORANDUM ***

Jimmy C. Moore, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C, § 1983 *600 action alleging various constitutional violations arising out of the mishandling of his legal documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Hamilton v. Brown, 630 F.3d 889, 892 (9th Cir. 2011) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Moore’s action because Moore failed to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Lewis v. Casey, 618 U.S. 343, 349, 116 S.Ct. 2174, 136 L.Ed.2d 606 (1996) (access-to-courts claim requires showing that the defendant’s conduct caused actual injury to a non-frivolous legal claim); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 533, 535, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984) (holding that deprivation of property does not violate due process if a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available and explaining that state tort actions are meaningful post-deprivation remedies); see also Idaho Code § 6-901 (Idaho Tort Claims Act) (2016).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore’s amended complaint without further leave to amend. See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1129-30 (9th Cir. 2013) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend can be denied if amendment would be futile).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Moore’s motions for reconsideration because Moore failed to state any grounds warranting relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)).

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

AFFIRMED.

***

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

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

Donald Robin BARREN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom HARRINGTON, Defendant-Appellee

152 F.3d 1193 (Ninth Circuit, 1998)

Shawna Hartmann v. California Department of Corr.

707 F.3d 1114 (Ninth Circuit, 2013)

Padgett v. Wright

587 F.3d 983 (Ninth Circuit, 2009)

McDonald v. George Meany Center for Labor Studies

519 U.S. 1054 (Supreme Court, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 F. App'x 599, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jimmy-moore-v-stephen-barttlet-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack