Ward v. Waldron, 071212 FED9, 10-17685

Docket Nº:10-17685, 11-15476
Party Name:FREDERICK LOUIS WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GEMMA GREENE WALDRON; et al., Defendants-Appellees. FREDERICK LOUIS WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. GOMEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:July 12, 2012
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

FREDERICK LOUIS WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GEMMA GREENE WALDRON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

FREDERICK LOUIS WARD, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

GOMEZ; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 10-17685, 11-15476

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 12, 2012

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted June 26, 2012 [**]

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Nos. 3:10-cv-00306-LRH-RAM, 3:09-cv-00007-RCJ-VPC, Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

In these consolidated appeals, Frederick Louis Ward appeals pro se from the district court's judgments dismissing his actions arising out of alleged excessive force and denial of adequate medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the claims against Waldron and the City of Spark defendants because Ward failed to allege facts sufficient to show that defendants conspired to violate Ward's constitutional rights or that Waldron was acting under color of state law. See Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916, 929 (9th Cir. 2004) ("To state a claim for conspiracy to violate constitutional rights, the plaintiff must state specific facts to support the existence of the claimed conspiracy." (citation and internal quotations omitted)); Simmons v. Sacramento Cnty. Super. Ct., 318 F.3d 1156, 1161 (9th Cir. 2003) (conclusory allegations that attorney was conspiring with state officers are insufficient to support a § 1983 claim).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by granting defendants' motion to strike documents Ward personally filed while he was still represented by counsel. See Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters....

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP