Opinion
No. 06-35567.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
August 22, 2007.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. DONo. CV-06-05074-RBL.
Before: KLEINFELD, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Mark B. Harris appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Superintendent of the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services Special Commitment Center violated his duty of care towards Harris and other residents. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir. 2005), and we affirm.
Although on appeal Harris contends that he seeks assistance from the court to obtain treatment for an eye injury and to pursue a state medical injury claim, he did not raise these claims in his complaint. Rather, his complaint stated general claims on behalf of a "class" of inmates. However, "a non-lawyer has no authority to appear as an attorney for others than himself." Johns v. County of San Diego, 114 F.3d 874, 877 (9th Cir. 1997) (internal citation and quotation omitted). On two occasions the district court ordered Harris to amend and he failed to do so. Therefore the district court did not err when it concluded that Harris' complaint was insufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) and Rule 12(b)(6), and dismissed the action. See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1124 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) ("[A] district court shall dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint if the court determines that the action . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted." (internal quotations and citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.