Robert Mertens v. Guy Shensky

MEMORANDUM

Robert Leon Mertens, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants conspired to seize his property illegally when he was arrested. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo summary judgment. Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam). We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a request for appointed counsel. Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir.2009). We affirm.

Mertens did not have standing to sue the state defendants, including defendant Stovall, because Mertens had no legally protected interest in the subject matter of the action. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (to have standing a plaintiff must have suffered an invasion of a legally protected interest); see also Silverton v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 644 F.2d 1341 , 1345 (9th Cir.1981) (stating that a district court may dismiss an action as to defendants who have not moved to dismiss where such defendants are in a position similar to that of moving defendants). Further, the district court…