Josef Boehm v. Joseph Shemaria , 478 F. App'x 457 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                               FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                                SEP 06 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                         U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOSEF F. BOEHM,                                    No. 10-36076
    Plaintiff - Appellant,               D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00135-RRB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    JOSEPH SHEMARIA,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Alaska
    Ralph R. Beistline, Chief District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted August 30, 2012 **
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion
    by denying Plaintiff-Appellant Josef F. Boehm leave to amend his complaint. A
    district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies leave to amend where a
    *
    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).
    plaintiff fails to comply with the local rules regarding amendment and where he
    “did not propose any new facts or legal theories for an amended complaint and
    therefore g[i]ve the Court [any] basis to allow an amendment.” Gardner v.
    Martino, 
    563 F.3d 981
    , 991 (9th Cir. 2009).1 We affirm.
    Boehm’s request to amend his complaint failed to comply with the local
    rules,2 and it did not state any additional facts that would cure the deficiencies of
    the original complaint. On appeal, Boehm gives us no way to know how or why
    the district court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend. Thus, with
    no hint as to what new allegations could toll the statute of limitations and no
    proposed amended complaint, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
    dismissing this case with prejudice.
    AFFIRMED.
    1
    Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recite
    them here.
    2
    District of Alaska Civil Local Rule 15.1(1) states that “A party who moves
    to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the amended pleading to the motion.”
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-36076

Citation Numbers: 478 F. App'x 457

Judges: Bea, Hawkins, McKEOWN

Filed Date: 9/6/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/5/2023