Widmer v. Wiley Detention Center

Full title: Albert WIDMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOB WILEY DETENTION CENTER…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Aug 23, 2001

17 F. App'x 581 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

17 Fed.Appx. 581 (9th Cir. 2001) Albert WIDMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BOB WILEY DETENTION CENTER, Defendant-Appellee. No. 99-16622. D.C. No. CV-96-06281-REC. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. August 23, 2001

Submitted August 13, 2001. ^*

* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

State prisoner brought § 1983 action against detention center. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Robert E. Coyle, J., denied prisoner's motion for leave to amend complaint and his motion for reconsideration. Prisoner appealed pro se. The Court of Appeals held that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to amend and motion for reconsideration.

Affirmed.

Page 582.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Robert E. Coyle, District Judge, Presiding.

Before HAWKINS, TASHIMA, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Albert Widmer, a state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his motion for leave to amend his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint and the denial of his motion for reconsideration. ¹ Because final judgment has entered in the district court, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion for leave to amend, see Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 939 F.2d 794, 798 (9th Cir.1991), as well as motions for reconsideration, see Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1198 (9th Cir.1994). We affirm.

1 Because this is the only contention Widmer raises in his brief, the other claims he raised before the district court are deemed abandoned. See Williamson v. General Dynamics Corp., 208 F.3d 1144, 1149 (9th Cir.2000).

Because a responsive pleading had been filed before Widmer filed his motion for leave to amend, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Widmer's motion to amend his complaint. See Texaco, 939 F.2d at 798. The district court likewise did not abuse its discretion by denying Widmer's motion for reconsideration. See Barber, 42 F.3d at 1198.

AFFIRMED.