Summary
finding district court properly dismissed action "as frivolous because the complaint contains indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions"
Summary of this case from Smith v. CaliforniaOpinion
No. 12-17333 D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01557-GEB-GGH
03-10-2014
CHADERICK A. INGRAM, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CITY OF SACRAMENTO; et al., Defendants - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Chaderick A. Ingram appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims against municipal, judicial, and private entities, among others, related to insurance and other transactions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Ingram's action as frivolous because the complaint contains indecipherable facts and unsupported legal assertions. See Jackson v. Arizona, 885 F.2d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 1989) (a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ingram's motion for appointment of counsel because, notwithstanding his mental impairments, Ingram failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and explaining grounds that warrant appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)).
AFFIRMED.