ALLAN PALMER V. CHARLES PALMER, No. 18-55470 (9th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 13 2018 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ALLAN H. F. PALMER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 18-55470 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-05247-JLS-DFM v. MEMORANDUM* CHARLES H. PALMER, DPSS civil rights coordinator; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 10, 2018** Before: CANBY, W. FLETCHER, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Alan H. F. Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging a conspiracy and due process violations. 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). Barren v. Harrington, 152 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Palmer’s action because Palmer failed to allege facts sufficient to state plausible claims for relief. See Franceschi v. Yee, 887 F.3d 927, 935 (9th Cir. 2018) (setting forth elements of procedural due process claim); Portman v. County of Santa Clara, 995 F.2d 898, 908-09 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth elements of claim under § 1985(2)); see also Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be liberally construed, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Palmer further leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that district court may deny leave to amend where proposed amendments would be futile). We reject as without merit Palmer’s contention of judicial bias. Palmer’s request for an “Information Technology review,” set forth in his opening brief, is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 18-55470

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.