Douglas Ray Arledge v. Boise City Attorney

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DOUGLAS RAY ARLEDGE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BOISE CITY ATTORNEY,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
ALAN E. TRIMMING; TIM HANSEN;
JOEL HORTON; FORMER ADA COUNTY
PUBLIC DEFENDERS; AMIL MYSHIN;
FORMER ADA COUNTY PROSECUTOR;
ADA COUNTY PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE;
DOES, John-Jane, A-Z,
Defendants.
No. 22-35358
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00466-DCN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Idaho
David C. Nye, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 18, 2023**
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
AUG 4 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 22-35358
Before: SCHROEDER, RAWLINSON, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Former Idaho state prisoner Douglas Ray Arledge appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his claims arising out of state court criminal
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
district court’s dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Skilstaf,
Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Arledge’s action because Arledge
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627
F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed
liberally, a plaintiff must still present factual allegations sufficient to state a
plausible claim for relief); Sanders v. Brown, 504 F.3d 903, 910 (9th Cir. 2007)
(“Conclusory allegations and unreasonable inferences . . . are insufficient to defeat
a motion to dismiss.”).
The district court did not err in dismissing Arledge’s action without allowing
him to engage in discovery. See Rutman Wine Co. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 829
F.2d 729, 738 (9th Cir. 1987) (“The purpose of [Rule] 12(b)(6) is to enable
defendants to challenge the legal sufficiency of complaints without subjecting
themselves to discovery.”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arledge’s motion
for reconsideration because Arledge failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See

-- 2 of 3 --

3 22-35358
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Herron, 634 F.3d 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Rule 59(e)); Coastal
Transfer Co. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., 833 F.2d 208, 211 (9th Cir. 1987)
(“Evidence is not ‘newly discovered’ under the Federal Rules if it was in the
moving party’s possession at the time of trial or could have been discovered with
reasonable diligence.”).
We lack jurisdiction to consider Arledge’s contentions regarding the
dismissal of his claims against the Ada County defendants because his appeal as to
these defendants is untimely. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). In November 2021, the
district court issued its Rule 54(b) order as to the dismissal of Arledge’s claims
against the Ada County defendants, but Arledge did not appeal the dismissal until
May 2022.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --