Skip to main content


Reset A A Font size: Print

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Nancy Carol HUTCHISON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of OREGON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35820

Decided: November 26, 2019

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. Nancy Carol Hutchison, Pro Se Jonathan N. Schildt, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendant-Appellee


Nancy Carol Hutchison appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 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) for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm.

Dismissal of Hutchison’s action was proper because Hutchison 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 liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for misconduct alleged.”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hutchison’s motion to extend the deadline for her objections to the judge’s findings and recommendations because Hutchison failed to establish excusable neglect. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth standard of review and four-part balancing test to determine whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline constitutes excusable neglect).


Copied to clipboard