FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 21 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MITCHELL, No. 10-35081
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-05504-RBL
v.
MEMORANDUM *
ROBERT W. POWERS, Ph.D.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 10, 2011 **
Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Washington state prisoner Robert Mitchell appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a judgment of
*
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).
dismissal, Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and for
abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292
F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
After giving Mitchell specific notice of the deficiencies in his original
complaint and leave to amend, the district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s
action because the amended complaint contained the same deficiencies as the
original complaint as well as new deficiencies, including putative class action
allegations. See Chodos, 292 F.3d at 1003 (no abuse of discretion to dismiss action
after plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies of which court had notified him); see also
Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 975 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (circumstances
under which abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), is
appropriate); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir.
1987) (pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others); Arnold v. Int’l Bus.
Machs., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir. 1981) (to bring section 1983 claim, plaintiff
must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that
demonstrates a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights).
Mitchell’s remaining contentions are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-35081