N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT ADAM J. TENSER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt, v. B ETH SILVER

M A N, in he r pe rsona l/profe ssiona l c a

pa c ity a s De puty Distric t Attorne y

for the Los Ange le s C ounty Distric t Attorne y s Offic e ; e t a l., De fe nda nts-Appe lle e s, and R OB ER T JOSHUA R

YAN; e t a l., De fe nda nts. No. 20-56176 D.C . No. 2:19-c v-05496-VB F-R

AO M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia V a le rie B ake r Fa irba

nk, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Oc tobe r 22, 2021 * * Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia 

# FIL ED OCT 26 2021 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).B e fore : KLEINFELD, R . NELSON, a n d VANDYKE, C irc uit Judge s. Te nse r is a

n attorne y bringing seve ra l Se c tion 1983 c la im s a ga inst the prose c utors, de te c tive s, a

nd offic ia ls he e n c o unte re d during his me ssy involve m e nt with his c ivil c lie nt’ s prose c ution for m urde r. He a

ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his Se c tion 1983 c la im s with pre judic e pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 12(b)(6), a s we ll a s its orde r de c l ining to ente r de fa ult judgme nt in his fa vor. W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm . 1

A dismissa l for fa i lure to sta te a c la im is re vie we d de novo. K

nie v e l v . ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th C ir. 2005). A de n i a l of le ave to a m e nd is re vie we d for a b u se of disc re tion. Alle n v . C ity of Be v e rly

Hills , 911 F.2d 367, 373 (9th C ir. 1990). A de nia l of a m otion for de fa

u lt judgm e nt is re vie we d for a buse of disc re tion. Aldabe

v . Aldabe , 616 F.2d 1089, 1092–93 (9th C i r. 1980). W e m ay a ffirm on a ny ground supporte d by

the re c ord. Ve

ga v . Unite d State

s , 881 F.3d 1146, 1152 (9th C ir. 2018).

1 Te nse r a lso m ove s to strikeportions of Silverm an’ s brie f and e xc e rpts from the re c ord. Dk

t. 17 . The m otion is De nie d as M oot . In a ffirm ing thedistric t c ourt, we c onside r none of the m ate ria l Te nse r wishe s stric ke n. Dk t. 17 at 5 . 2I. T e nse r ’s Failur e to State Claim s

First, Te nse r’ s c la im s a ga inst prose c utors M oka y e f an d Silve rm a

n are ba rre d by a b soluteim

m unity . B e c a

use Te nse r’ s a lle gations foc us on c onduc t le a ding up to his c onte m

pt c ita tion, they c onc e rn c onduc t “ intim ate l y a ssoc iate d with the judic ia l pha se of the c rim ina l proc e ss.” Torre s v . Goddard

, 793 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th C ir. 2015) (quoting Imble r v . Pac htman , 424 U.S. 409, 430 (1976)).

Se c ond, Te n se r fa i l s to sta te c l a im s a ga inst de te c tive s C otte r and M artinda le . To the e x te nt tha

t he ba se s his c la im s on thede te c tive s’ c onduc t a s witne sse s or subm itting de c l a

rations in support of the

c onte m pt c ita tion, his c la im s a

re ba rre d by a b soluteim

m unity . Burns v . C

nty . of K i ng , 883 F.2d 819, 822 (9th C ir. 1989). Furthe r, he fa ils to sta

te a right to pe t ition c la i m

be c a use the de te c tive s ha d no duty to re spond to Tense r’ s c om p la ints. Smith v . Ark

ansas State

Highw ay Emp., Loc al 1315 , 441 U.S. 463, 464–65 (1979). Furthe rm ore , Te nse r fa ils to sta

te a Fourth Am e ndm e nt c la im

be c a use it is not a

se i z ure to e sc o rt som e one from a c ourthouse on a judge ’ s orde r, pa

rtic ula rly whe re tha

t pe rson volunta

rily le ave s a nd no forc e is use d . Se eShe

ppard v . Be e rman , 18 F.3d 147, 153 (2d C ir. 1994). Nor is it a se izure to c a

u se som e one to be re quire d to a p pe ar be fore the c ourt by

subm itting 3de c la

rations showing c a

use for c onte m

pt. C f. K aram v . C ity of Burbank

, 352 F.3d 1188, 1194 (9th C ir. 2003). Finally , Te nse r fa ils to sta te a “ c l a ss of one ” e qua l prote c tion c la im be c a

use a ll of thee v e nts le a ding up to his c onte m pt c ita tion involve d disc re tiona

ry de c ision-m aking. Tow e ry v . Bre w e r , 672 F.3d 650, 660 (9th C ir. 2012). Third, Te nse r fa ils to sta

te c la i m s a ga inst thede fe nda nts a ssoc iate d with Twin Towe rs C orre c tiona l Fa c ility . He fa ils to sta te a fre e spe e c h c la im

be c a use , e ve n a s sum ing thein c am e ra re quire m e nt som e how inte rfe re d with his le ga l pra c tic e , he ha s c ite d no a uthority to sugge st the re is a

c o nstitutiona

l right to spe ak to a n im prisone d c lie nt in pe rson rathe r tha n by c am e ra , pa

rtic ula rly whe re , a s he re , the re wa s a

proc e ss in pla c e by

whic h he c ould se e k a c ourt orde r for in pe rson m e e tings. Hefa ils to sta

te a due proc e ss c la im

be c a use the right to pra c tic e la w is not viola te d by brie f inte rruptions to one ’ s a bility to pra c t ic e . Low ry v . Barnhart , 329 F.3d 1019, 1023 (9th C ir. 2003). And he fa ils to sta

te an e qua l prote c tion c la im be c a use his own alle gat ions show tha t the c am e ra

rule a pplie d to simila

rly situa te d attorne y s.

4B e c a

use Te nse r fa ils to sta

te any c la im a ga inst individua

l de fe nda nts, we do not re a c h his c l a im s a ga i nst a ny gove rnm e nt e ntity

(“ Doe 10” ) that e m

ploy e d the m . II. T he Distr ic t Cour t’s De nial of T e nse r ’s M otion forDe fault Judgm e nt The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de c line d to e nte r de fa ult judgme nt in fa

vor of Te nse r. Te nse r argue s tha t Silve rm an

fa ile d to tim e ly answe r the First Am e nde d C om pla int. Howe ve r, a m otion to dism iss e xte nds the tim e to a nswe r an am e nde d c om

pla int to 14 da

y s a fte r the c ourt rule s on the m otion. Fe d. R . C iv. P. 12(a)(4), (b).

III. T he Distr ic t Cour t’s De nial of L e ave to Am e nd The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion whe n it de nie d Te n se r le ave to am e nd. Te nse r argue s tha t the distric t

c ourt fa ile d to give him

the le e way

owe d to pro se litiga

nts. B ut this rule of le nie nc y doe s not a pply whe n, a s he re , the litiga

nt is a la wy e r. Se eEric k

son v . Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (pe r c uriam ) (indic ating tha

t the prope r c ontra st is be twe e n ple a d ings dra fte d by la wy e rs a nd 5non-la

wy e rs). M ore ove r, le ave to a m e nd m ay

be de nie d whe n, a s he re , am e ndm e nt would befutile . Sonoma C nty . Ass’n of Re tire d Emps. v . Sonoma C ty ., 708 F.3d 1109, 1117 (9th C ir. 2013).

IV . T e nse r ’s V iolation of Rule8

W e note tha

t Te nse r’ s c om

pla int fa ils to give

“ a short a nd pla in sta

te m e nt of the c la i m ” tha

t is “ sim ple , c onc ise , a

nd dire c t.” Fe d. R . C iv. Proc . 8(a )(2), (d)(1). The distric t c ourt struggle d, a s ha ve we , to ide ntify

whic h c la im s atta c h to whic h de fe nda nts, a nd pre c ise ly

what c la im s a

re m a de . The c om

pla int runs 100 pa

ge s. Te nse r’ s num

be re d a l le gations c om

prise long, de nse , ram

bling se nte nc e s. The unfortuna te re sult is tha

t Te nse r, by

his prolixity , ha s ta

ke n “ a gre at de a l of tim e away from m o re de s e rving litiga

nts wa iting in line .” Mc

He nry v . Re nne , 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th C ir. 1996). AFFIRM E D.

6