Webster Dawkins v. Wells Fargo Bank, Na

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WEBSTER DAWKINS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, NA,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-35792
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05073-BHS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Benjamin H. Settle, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Webster Dawkins appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action arising from his loan agreements with Wells Fargo Bank,
NA. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel
v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
FILED
MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

The district court properly dismissed Dawkins’ action because Dawkins
failed to allege facts sufficient to show a breach of contract by Wells Fargo or any
resulting damage. See Lehrer v. State, Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 5 P.3d 722,
727 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (“Generally, a plaintiff in a contract action must prove
a valid contract between the parties, breach, and resulting damage.”); see also Starr
v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (a complaint “must contain sufficient
allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and to enable the opposing party
to defend itself effectively,” and “must plausibly suggest an entitlement to relief”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dawkins’ motion to
appoint counsel because Dawkins failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances.
See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of
review and requirement of “exceptional circumstances” for appointment of
counsel).
Dawkins’ contentions that the district court had a conflict of interest, that the
district court improperly suppressed evidence, and that the court clerk violated 28
U.S.C. § 955 are unpersuasive and not supported by the record.
Dawkins’ pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
11-35792 2

-- 2 of 2 --