Case ID: f-appx_696/html/0236-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Swaran KAUR; Balbir Singh, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMPTROLLER OF the CURRENCY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 16-15569
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    Swaran Kaur, Pro Se
    Balbir Singh, Pro Se
    Elizabeth Holt Andrews, Esquire, Jan T. Chilton, Attorney, Severson & Werson APC, One Embarcadero Center, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Swaran Kaur and Balbir Singh appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law claims arising from the foreclosure of their property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed appellants’ deprivation of rights and discrimination claims for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because the allegations in the second amended complaint were vague, confusing, and failed to connect their claims to defendants’ conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P, 8(a)(2) (pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’ second amended complaint without further leave to amend because the district court provided appellants with two opportunities 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., 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)).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication. and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.