NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

OWEN KEIPER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

VENTA, Parole Officer; JASON BROWN, 

Parole Officer,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-35575

D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00235-RRB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Ralph R. Beistline, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted October 25, 2016**

Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.

Owen Keiper appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from the 

seizure and impoundment of his vehicle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

 

* 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

NOV 3 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-35575 

§ 1291. We review de novo, Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th Cir. 

2004), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Keiper failed 

to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants Brown and 

Venta personally participated in the alleged rights deprivation. See Jones v. 

Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934-35 (9th Cir. 2002) (“In order for a person acting under 

color of state law to be liable under section 1983 there must be a showing of 

personal participation in the alleged rights deprivation.”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 

Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1061 (9th Cir. 2011) (“To survive 

summary judgment, a plaintiff must set forth non-speculative evidence of specific 

facts, not sweeping conclusory allegations.”). 

Keiper has abandoned any claims against Officers Hasbrouck and Witte

because Keiper failed to replead any claims against them in his first amended 

complaint. See Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v. Space Sys./Loral, Inc., 710 F.3d 946, 

973 n.14, 974 n.15 (9th Cir. 2013) (failure to replead claims in amended complaint 

amounts to abandonment of those claims). Keiper’s contentions that he should 

have been granted further leave to amend to allege claims against additional 

defendants are unpersuasive.
3 15-35575 

The district court properly dismissed without prejudice Keiper’s claims on 

behalf of James because, as a non-attorney, Keiper cannot represent another person 

in this action. See Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 2008)

(non-attorney plaintiff may not attempt to pursue claim on behalf of others). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keiper’s motion for 

appointment of counsel because Keiper failed to demonstrate exceptional

circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting 

forth standard of review). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keiper’s request for 

recusal. See United States v. Johnson, 610 F.3d 1138, 1147 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting 

forth standard of review and grounds for recusal and stating that judicial rulings 

alone rarely constitute a valid basis for a recusal motion). Keiper’s contentions 

that the district court was biased and denied him access to the courts are 

unpersuasive.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting defendants’ motion 

for an extension of time to file dispositive motions. See Ahanchian v. Xenon 

Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258 (9th Cir. 2010) (standard of review); FTC v. 

Gill, 265 F.3d 944, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (district court has broad discretion to 
4 15-35575 

control its docket and set deadlines).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Keiper’s motion for 

default judgment. See Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986) 

(setting forth standard of review and factors to consider regarding entry of default 

judgment).

Keiper’s contentions regarding the district court’s order to show cause and 

his motion to compel are unsupported by the record. 

We do not consider documents or facts that were not presented to the district 

court. United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d 870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990) (“Documents or 

facts not presented to the district court are not part of the record on appeal.”).

Keiper’s request for appointment of counsel, set forth in his reply brief, is 

denied. 

Keiper’s motion for an extension of time, filed on April 4, 2016, is granted. 

Keiper’s request for judicial notice, filed on March 7, 2016, is denied.

Keiper’s request to supplement and amend the opening brief, contained in 

the January 4, 2016 filing, is granted. The requests contained in the supplement

are denied. 

AFFIRMED.