SMITH v. Doug Allen Echols; et al., Defendants. (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Cheri SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SAN JUAN COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees, Doug Allen Echols; et al., Defendants.

No. 20-15763

Decided: July 21, 2021

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Cheri Smith, Gilbert, AZ, Pro Se. Michele Molinario, Attorney, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants. Michele Molinario, Lori Lea Voepel, Attorneys, Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Board of County Commissioners of San Juan County, San Juan County Communications Agency, Robert Shane Ferrari, Brandie L. Ferrari, Kenneth W. Christesen, Kathy Christesen. Bryan C. Garcia, Garcia Law Group, LLC, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants-Appellees New Mexico Dept. of Public Safety, NCIC CJIS, Regina Chacon, State of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, 11th Judicial District Attorney's Office - Div. 1, New Mexico, Robert Patrick Tedrow, Barbara Tedrow, Stacey Arnold, Michael E. Arnold II. Nicholas Sydow, State of New Mexico Office of the Attorney General, Albuquerque, NM, for Defendants-Appellees New Mexico Supreme Court, Judith Nakamura, State of New Mexico Office of the Attorney General, Hector H. Balderas, Denise Balderas.

MEMORANDUM **

Cheri Smith appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal under its local rules. Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Smith's action after Smith failed to file an opposition to defendants’ motions to dismiss as required by Local Rule 7.2(i). See D. Ariz. R. 7.2(i) (providing that failure to file the required answering memoranda to a motion “may be deemed a consent to the ․ granting of the motion”); Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth factors to be considered before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, concluding that this court may review the record independently if the district court does not make explicit findings regarding the factors, and noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Smith's motion to file a second amended complaint because Smith failed to describe how the amendments would cure the deficiencies in the prior complaint, and the proposed amendments did not cure the deficiencies. See D. Ariz. R. 15.1 (providing that the proposed amended pleading “must indicate in what respect it differs from the pleading which it amends”); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

We reject as meritless Smith's contention that the district court erred by not taking judicial notice of her proposed exhibits.

All pending motions (Docket Entry Nos. 36, 46, 54, and 55) are denied.

Defendants’ request that this court designate Smith a vexatious litigant, set forth in the answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law