Crispin Granados v. Padilla

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CRISPIN GRANADOS, No. 21-16198
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02039-SPL-MHB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PADILLA, SSU, Sgt.; BALLAS, CO;
CASTILLO, Sgt.; DIAZ, Correction Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2023**
Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Crispin Granados appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1
*
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).
Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Granados’s action because after
repeated amendment, Granados’s operative complaint failed to comply with Rule
8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)-(3) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief” and must contain
a “demand for the relief sought”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671,
674 (9th Cir. 1981) (a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory”
violates Rule 8).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 21-16198