WEBSTER DAWKINS V. WELLS FARGO BANK N.A., No. 11-35792 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED MAY 29 2014 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEBSTER DAWKINS, No. 11-35792 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05073-BHS v. MEMORANDUM* WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Webster Dawkins appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his action arising from his loan agreements with Wells Fargo Bank, NA. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm. * 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). The district court properly dismissed Dawkins action because Dawkins failed to allege facts sufficient to show a breach of contract by Wells Fargo or any resulting damage. See Lehrer v. State, Dep t of Soc. & Health Servs., 5 P.3d 722, 727 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) ( Generally, a plaintiff in a contract action must prove a valid contract between the parties, breach, and resulting damage. ); see also Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (a complaint must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party to defend itself effectively, and must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief ). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dawkins motion to appoint counsel because Dawkins failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and requirement of exceptional circumstances for appointment of counsel). Dawkins contentions that the district court had a conflict of interest, that the district court improperly suppressed evidence, and that the court clerk violated 28 U.S.C. § 955 are unpersuasive and not supported by the record. Dawkins pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 11-35792
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.
