Isaacky Sharipoff v. Jason Myers

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 27 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ISAACKY GAVRILOVICH SHARIPOFF, No. 20-35184
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:18-cv-01659-MK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JASON MYERS, Sheriff; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Mustafa T. Kasubhai, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 18, 2021***
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
Isaacky Gavrilovich Sharipoff appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his action against deputies at the Marion County Jail. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28
U.S.C. § 636(c).
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry
v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sharipoff’s
action for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). Despite an opportunity to amend,
Sharipoff’s amended complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to contain a short
and plain statement of the grounds for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Cafasso,
U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (a
complaint violates Rule 8 when it is “highly repetitious, or confused, or consist[s]
of incomprehensible ramblings” (citation omitted)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-35184