Roger Gifford v. Hornbrook Community Serv. Dist

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROGER GIFFORD, No. 16-15749
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:15-cv-01274-MCE-AC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HORNBROOK COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 8, 2017**
Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Roger Gifford appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.
1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gifford’s action
for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), because the first amended complaint does
not contain “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that [Gifford] is
entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 (affirming
dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . .
impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Gifford’s first
amended complaint without leave to amend because Gifford was provided with
one opportunity to amend and further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is
proper when amendment would be futile); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., Inc., 292
F.3d 992, 1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a
plaintiff leave to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is
particularly broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-15749