
    Robert MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert W. POWERS, Ph.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-35081.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 10, 2011.
    
    Filed Jan. 21, 2011.
    
      Robert Mitchell, pro se.
    Before: BEEZER, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Washington state prisoner Robert Mitchell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a judgment of dismissal, Huftile v. Miccio-Fonseca, 410 F.3d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.2005), and for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend, Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., 292 F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

After giving Mitchell specific notice of the deficiencies in his original complaint and leave to amend, the district court properly dismissed Mitchell’s action because the amended complaint contained the same deficiencies as the original complaint as well as new deficiencies, including putative class action allegations. See Chodos, 292 F.3d at 1003 (no abuse of discretion to dismiss action after plaintiff failed to cure deficiencies of which court had notified him); see also Gilbertson v. Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 975 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc) (circumstances under which abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), is appropriate); C.E. Pope Equity Trust v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987) (pro se litigant may not appear as an attorney for others); Arnold v. Int'l Bus. Machs., 637 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.1981) (to bring section 1983 claim, plaintiff must link each named defendant with some affirmative act or omission that demonstrates a violation of plaintiffs constitutional rights).

Mitchell’s remaining contentions are without merit.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     