FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HOWARD ALAN ZOCHLINSKI, No. 10-15917
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00185-FCD-
EFB
v.
THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY MEMORANDUM *
OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Frank C. Damrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 14, 2013 **
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Howard Alan Zochlinski appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims related
to an alleged conspiracy to unfairly enforce housing and nuisance ordinances
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
against him in violation of his civil rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim, and for an
abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. Wood v. City of San Diego, 678
F.3d 1075, 1080 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Zochlinski’s action because Zochlinski
failed to allege sufficient facts to state one or more element of each claim against
any defendant. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986; Thornton v.
City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (setting
forth elements of equal protection claim); Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.3d 423, 441 (9th
Cir. 2002) (setting forth § 1983 conspiracy claim); Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d
890, 895 (9th Cir. 2002) (setting forth claim under Americans with Disabilities
Act) (per curiam); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010)
(though pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must nonetheless
present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief); Cholla
Ready Mix, Inc. v. Civish, 382 F.3d 969, 973 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that courts are
not required to accept as true conclusory allegations, unwarranted deductions of
fact, or unreasonable inferences).
The district court properly declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over Zochlinski’s state law claims after dismissing his federal claims. See 28
2 10-15917
U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3); Acri v. Varian Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir.
1997) (en banc) (district court has discretion to keep, or decline to keep, state law
claims under conditions set forth in § 1367(c)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Zochlinski leave to
amend because amendment would have been futile. See AmerisourceBergen Corp.
v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court need not
grant leave to amend where amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Zochlinski’s
motion for appointment of counsel. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th
Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances”
requirement for appointment of counsel).
Zochlinski’s contentions regarding the district court’s alleged failure to
understand his allegations, to sua sponte remand his state law claims, and to
consider a late-filed proposed second amended complaint are unpersuasive.
Zochlinski’s motion for oral argument, filed on August 22, 2011, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-15917