Case Name: Josef F. BOEHM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph SHEMARIA, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-06
Citations: 478 F. App'x 457
Docket Number: No. 10-36076
Parties: Josef F. BOEHM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph SHEMARIA, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 457–458

Head Matter:
Josef F. BOEHM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joseph SHEMARIA, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-36076.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 30, 2012.
Filed Sept. 6, 2012.
W. Sherman Ernouf, Senior, Law Offices of Ernouf and Coffey, P.C., Anchorage, AK, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Joseph Shemaria, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The sole issue in this appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Plaintiff-Appellant Josef F. Boehm leave to amend his complaint. A district court does not abuse its discretion when it denies leave to amend where a plaintiff fails to comply with the local rules regarding amendment and where he "did not propose any new facts or legal theories for an amended complaint and therefore g[i]ve the Court [any] basis to allow an amendment." Gardner v. Martino, 563 F.3d 981, 991 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.
Boehm's request to amend his complaint failed to comply with the local rules, and it did not state any additional facts that would cure the deficiencies of the original complaint. On appeal, Boehm gives us no way to know how or why the district court abused its discretion in denying him leave to amend. Thus, with no hint as to what new allegations could toll the statute of limitations and no proposed amended complaint, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing this case with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not recite them here.
. District of Alaska Civil Local Rule 15.1(1) states that "A party who moves to amend a pleading must attach a copy of the amended pleading to the motion."