JONATHAN BERTANELLI V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 12-16990 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 14 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JONATHAN CATALDO BERTANELLI, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 12-16990 D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00409-FRZPSOT v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et al., MEMORANDUM* Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 7, 2014** Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges. Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * 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). § 1291. We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Bertanelli s action because the operative First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, a complaint must set forth simple, concise, and direct averments indicating which defendants are liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs ); see also Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) requirements). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bertinelli s motion for reconsideration because Bertanelli failed to establish a basis for such relief. See D. Ariz. Loc. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Hilton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing application of local rules for an abuse of discretion); see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)). 2 12-16990 Bertanelli s contentions that the court failed to construe liberally his First Amended Complaint, and that he stated a conspiracy claim, are not supported by the record. AFFIRMED. 3 12-16990

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.