FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 12 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FREDERICK LOUIS WARD, No. 10-17685
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00306-LRH-
RAM
v.
GEMMA GREENE WALDRON; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
FREDERICK LOUIS WARD, No. 11-15476
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:09-cv-00007-RCJ-VPC
v.
GOMEZ; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Robert C. Jones, Chief Judge, Presiding
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Submitted June 26, 2012 **
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
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
**
The panel unanimously concludes these appeals are suitable for
decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 10-17685
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. Inc., 397 F.3d 1217,
1224 n.4 (9th Cir. 2005) (stating standard of review).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, nor arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Ward’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 10-17685