Case ID: f-appx_586/html/0354-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jerry A. BRENDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lori CARLSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-35034.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Nov. 18, 2014.
    
    Filed Dec. 3, 2014.
    Jerry A. Brenden, pro se.
    Javier F. Garcia, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. 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

Jerry A. Brenden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action against his former employer. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an order to amend the complaint to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brenden’s action with prejudice because, despite being given an opportunity to amend, Brenden’s operative first amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8, and Brenden failed either to respond to the district court’s order to show cause with a second amended complaint that complied with Rule 8, or to explain why his action should not be dismissed. See id. (affirming dismissal where the plaintiff failed to amend the complaint in compliance with Rule 8); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981) (a complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 may be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b)).

All pending motions are denied as moot.

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