Wayne Merkley v. State of Idaho

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WAYNE DOUGLAS MERKLEY, No. 16-35527
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00463-CWD
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF IDAHO; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
Candy W. Dale, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted March 8, 2017***
Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
Idaho state prisoner Wayne Douglas Merkley appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional and statutory claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
Merkley consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We review de novo. Belanus v. Clark, 796 F.3d 1021, 1024 (9th Cir. 2015)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Merkley’s action because Merkley
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. See Hebbe v.
Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be
construed liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Merkley’s motion
for reconsideration because Merkley did not demonstrate grounds for
reconsideration. See Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 883, 890
(9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for reconsideration
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59).
The district court did not err in denying Merkley’s motion to rescind his
consent to proceed before a magistrate judge because Merkley did not demonstrate
good cause or extraordinary circumstances. See Anderson v. Woodcreek Venture
Ltd., 351 F.3d 911, 915 (9th Cir. 2003) (standard of review); Dixon v. Ylst, 990
F.2d 478, 479-80 (9th Cir. 1993) (consent to proceed before a magistrate judge in a
civil case may only be withdrawn for good cause or extraordinary circumstances).
All pending requests are denied.
2 16-35527
AFFIRMED.
3 16-35527