The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
12-17333•Chaderick A. Ingram v. City of Sacramento;
12-17333Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMar 18, 2014
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHADERICK A. INGRAM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF SACRAMENTO; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-17333
D.C. No. 2:12-cv-01557-GEB-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 10, 2014**
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
FILED
MAR 18 2014
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).
-- 1 of 2 --
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fact), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d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.
12-17333 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.