Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN CATALDO BERTANELLI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-16990
D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00409-FRZ-
PSOT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that
defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
APR 14 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 3 --

§ 1291. We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.
2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Dominguez v. Miller (In re
Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bertanelli’s action because the
operative First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.
1996) (under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, a complaint must set forth simple, concise, and
direct averments indicating “which defendants are liable to plaintiffs for which
wrongs”); see also Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir.
2000) (discussing Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b) requirements).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bertinelli’s motion
for reconsideration because Bertanelli failed to establish a basis for such relief. See
D. Ariz. Loc. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Hilton v.
Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing application of local rules
for an abuse of discretion); see also Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v.
ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and
grounds for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)).
12-16990 2

-- 2 of 3 --

Bertanelli’s contentions that the court failed to construe liberally his First
Amended Complaint, and that he stated a conspiracy claim, are not supported by
the record.
AFFIRMED.
12-16990 3

-- 3 of 3 --