Jonathan Bertanelli v. Charles Ryan

Ninth Circuit

Jonathan Bertanelli v. Charles Ryan

568 F. App'x 531

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 14, 2014

Docket12-16990

StatusUnpublished

This text of 568 F. App'x 531 (Jonathan Bertanelli v. Charles Ryan) 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

Jonathan Bertanelli v. Charles Ryan, 568 F. App'x 531 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bertanelli’s action because the operative First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996) (under Fed. R.Civ.P. 8, a complaint must set forth simple, concise, and direct averments indicating “which defendants are liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs”); see also Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir.2000) (discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) requirements).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bertanelli’s motion for reconsideration because Bertanelli failed to establish a basis for such relief. See D. Ariz. Loe. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (reviewing application of local rules for an abuse of discretion); see also Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

Bertanelli’s contentions that the court failed to construe liberally his First Amended Complaint, and that he stated a conspiracy claim, are not supported by the record.

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 **

Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bertanelli’s action because the operative First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996) (under Fed. R.Civ.P. 8, a complaint must set forth simple, concise, and direct averments indicating “which defendants are liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs”); see also Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir.2000) (discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) requirements).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bertanelli’s motion for reconsideration because Bertanelli failed to establish a basis for such relief. See D. Ariz. Loe. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (reviewing application of local rules for an abuse of discretion); see also Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

Bertanelli’s contentions that the court failed to construe liberally his First Amended Complaint, and that he stated a conspiracy claim, are not supported by the record.

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)

In Re H. Frank Dominguez, Debtor. H. Frank Dominguez v. David D. Miller Denyse M. Miller

51 F.3d 1502 (Ninth Circuit, 1995)

Mchenry v. Renne

84 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)

Weilburg v. Shapiro

488 F.3d 1202 (Ninth Circuit, 2007)

Bautista v. Los Angeles County

216 F.3d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

568 F. App'x 531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonathan-bertanelli-v-charles-ryan-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack