NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
MAR 23 2022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WENDELL DWAYNE O’NEAL, No. 20-16892
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-03025-JAD-DJA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TERRI ALBERTSON, Director; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Jennifer A. Dorsey, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 16, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, MILLER, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Wendell Dwayne O’Neal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). We
affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The district court properly dismissed O’Neal’s federal claims because
O’Neal failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are
construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim); see also West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (elements of a §
1983 claim); Thornton v. City of St. Helens, 425 F.3d 1158, 1168 (9th Cir. 2005)
(the absence of a deprivation of rights under § 1983 precludes a § 1985(3) claim
premised on the same allegations); Trerice v. Pedersen, 769 F.2d 1398, 1403 (9th
Cir. 1985) (no cause of action under § 1986 absent a valid § 1985 claim).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying O’Neal’s request to
consolidate a pending action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a); Garity v. APWU Nat’l
Labor Org., 828 F.3d 848, 855-56 (9th Cir. 2016) (district court has broad
discretion to consolidate complaints).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying O’Neal’s motion
for reconsideration because O’Neal failed to demonstrate any basis for such relief.
See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-
63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 20-16892
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We do not consider documents not presented to the district court. See
United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or facts not
presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-16892