Case ID: f-appx_474/html/0576-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert CHAMBERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 10-55754.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2012.
    
    Filed July 10, 2012.
    Robert Chambers, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
    Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Robert Chambers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while a pretrial detainee at Los Angeles County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A or 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the third amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring pleading to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.1996) (Rule 8 requires each averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong, and is a basis for dismissal independent of failure to state a claim).

Chambers’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Chambers’ request for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.