Joseph Brown v. United States , 635 F. App'x 383 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH BROWN, No. 14-17325
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00165-AWI-
GSA
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 24, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, FERNANDEZ, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Joseph Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action, brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging various
constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
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).
for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal without leave to amend,
Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Brown leave to
amend his fifth amended complaint after providing him with five opportunities to
amend and concluding that further amendment would be futile. See id. at 725-26
(“A district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when
amendment would be futile[.]”); see also Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A.,
759 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he district court’s discretion in denying
amendment is particularly broad when it has previously given leave to amend.”
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
We do not address issues that are not clearly and distinctly raised in the
opening brief, including whether the district court properly dismissed Brown’s fifth
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and
1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). See Greenwood v. FAA, 28 F.3d 971, 977 (9th Cir. 1994).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-17325