OpenJurist

881 F2d 1084 Kerekes v. Garvin R a

881 F.2d 1084

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Les KEREKES, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Dan GARVIN, John R. Hallahan, and Samuel A. Lewis,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 87-2720.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted* May 22, 1989.
Decided Aug. 2, 1989.

Before KILKENNY, WIGGINS and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Les Kerekes appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 civil rights complaint for failure to state a claim. We review de novo, see Cantrell v. Great Republic Ins. Co., 873 F.2d 1249, 1251 (CA9 1989), and we affirm.

3

We note at the outset that our review of this case is somewhat hampered by the fact that all three of the appellant's purportedly amended complaints were returned to him without having been accepted for filing by the district court clerk. While under other circumstances we might remand with instructions that the appellant supplement the record with the unfiled pleadings, we deem such a course of action to be unnecessary here.

4

First, the district court dismissed Kerekes' original complaint without prejudice and, in granting leave to amend, instructed the appellant concerning what was needed to state a cognizable claim. See Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (CA9 1987) (pro se civil rights litigant entitled, inter alia, to statement of reasons for dismissal and opportunity to amend). Second, the district court provided Kerekes with not one but three chances to correct those defects noted in his original complaint. Third, the district court's instructions to the clerk to return without filing those pleadings found by the court to be defective were the result of the appellant's noncompliance with Rule 53(a) of the Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.1 Cf., Carey v. King, 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (CA9 1988) (per curiam) (district court did not abuse discretion in dismissing pro se civil rights litigant's complaint for failure to comply with local rules). Accord, Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1008 (CA9 1986) (pro se status does not excuse litigant from noncompliance with court's rules).

5

While we are mindful of the leniency to be accorded pro se litigants in our courts, we find nothing improper in the district court's dismissal of the appellant's original complaint for failure to state a claim, nor in this instance in its refusal to accept for filing the subsequently tendered pleadings.

6

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously agrees that this case is appropriate for submission without oral argument per FRAP 34(a) and CA9 Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this Circuit except as provided by CA9 Rule 36-3

1

"Complaints tendered ... for filing which do not comply with this Rule shall be returned by the Clerk ... to the person tendering said complaint." (in relevant part)