Joseph Sherman v. Henderson , 382 F. App'x 557 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              JUN 03 2010
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    JOE SHERMAN,                                      No. 08-16597
    Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02414-GEB-
    GGH
    v.
    HENDERSON, Yolo County District                   MEMORANDUM *
    Attorney; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Eastern District of California
    Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted May 25, 2010 **
    Before:        CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    Joe Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
    court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest,
    malicious persecution, conspiracy and other claims. We have jurisdiction under
    *
    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).
    28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to
    state a claim, Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 
    356 F.3d 1058
    , 1065 (9th Cir. 2004),
    and we review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to
    comply with a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 
    963 F.2d 1258
    , 1260 (9th Cir.
    1992). We affirm.
    The district court properly dismissed Sherman’s First Amended Complaint
    for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires each
    averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, with enough detail to
    guide discovery. See McHenry v. Renne, 
    84 F.3d 1172
    , 1178 (9th Cir. 1996).
    The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after
    providing Sherman with a second opportunity to amend his complaint, apprising
    him of the deficiencies of his pleading, and warning him that failure to amend
    would result in dismissal. See 
    Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261-62
    .
    Sherman’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
    All pending motions and requests are denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-16597

Citation Numbers: 382 F. App'x 557

Judges: Canby, Thomas, Fletcher

Filed Date: 6/3/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024