Abby Jo Ovitsky v. State of Oregon;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ABBY JO OVITSKY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF OREGON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-35422
D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02250-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Abby Jo Ovitsky appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from her
treatment as someone who suffers from an auditory processing disorder and who
FILED
FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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). Accordingly, we deny
Ovitsky’s request for oral argument, set forth in her opening brief.

-- 1 of 3 --

communicates through writing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
review for an abuse of discretion a district court’s application of local rules, as well
as a denial of a motion for leave to amend. See Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391,
395 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ovitsky’s motion
for leave to file a third amended complaint because Ovitsky’s motion failed to
comply with local rules and Ovitsky’s proposed third amended complaint failed to
state any cognizable claims for relief. See D. Or. R. 7-1(a) (the first paragraph of
every motion must contain a certification regarding attempts to meet and confer;
otherwise, the court may deny the motion); D. Or. R. 15-1(c) (an amended
pleading “may not incorporate any part of the prior pleading by reference” and
“any party moving for leave to file an amended . . . pleading must describe the
proposed changes”); Hinton, 5 F.3d at 397 (a court may refuse to grant leave to
amend when, even if amendments were allowed, the complaint would be subject to
dismissal); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
14-35422 2

-- 2 of 3 --

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ovitsky’s motion
for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a) because Ovitsky
failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Garamendi v. Henin, 683 F.3d
1069, 1077-80 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and factors
warranting reconsideration under Rule 60(a)).
We reject Ovitsky’s contention that the district court erred by not appointing
counsel after it tried, but was unable, to find a volunteer lawyer to accept Ovitsky’s
case. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court, 490 U.S. 296, 298 (1989) (28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d) does not authorize a federal court to require an unwilling attorney to
represent an indigent litigant in a civil case).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
We do not consider any contentions relating to Washington County or to the
Washington County Sheriff’s Department because neither entity is a party to this
appeal.
AFFIRMED.
14-35422 3

-- 3 of 3 --