Janetta Sconiers, et al v. Mario Santos, et al, No. 09-15601 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 06 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANETTA SCONIERS and TIYEONDREA MCGLOTHIN, No. 09-15601 D.C. No. 1:08-cv-01290-LJO-GSA Plaintiffs - Appellants, MEMORANDUM * v. MARIO SANTOS, in his individual and official capacity; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Janetta Sconiers and Tiyeondrea McGlothin appeal pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action arising from their eviction from low income housing. We have jurisdiction * 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm the dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim for the reasons provided in the magistrate judge s findings and recommendation entered on December 8, 2008, and adopted by the district court on February 26, 2009. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. See Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 990 (9th Cir. 2009) ( A district court does not err in denying leave to amend where the amendment would be futile. ). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel because they failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991). The remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. 2 09-15601

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.