The opinion
FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BURTON RAY BATHKE, No. 13-15406
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-00553-AWI-
GSA
v.
EDMUND G. BROWN, Jr.; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Burton Ray Bathke appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various
constitutional violations in connection with his incarceration. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th
Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bathke’s First Amended Complaint
because it contained numerous unrelated claims against over sixty-six individual
defendants and did not contain a short and plain statement of claims as required by
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (a
complaint must make clear “who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory,
with enough detail to guide discovery”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a)(2)
(defendants may only be joined in one action if claims arise from the “same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Bathke’s First
Amended Complaint without leave to amend after providing Bathke with
opportunities to amend and concluding that further amendment would be futile.
See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130-31 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that leave to amend should be given unless
amendment would be futile).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bathke’s motion to
appoint counsel because Bathke failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
2 13-15406
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).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-15406