Case ID: f-appx_382/html/0557-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joe SHERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HENDERSON, Yolo County District Attorney; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-16597.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 25, 2010.
    
    Filed June 3, 2010.
    Joe Sherman, Davis, CA, pro se.
    Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Joe Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging false arrest, malicious persecution, conspiracy and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir.2004), and we review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Sherman’s First Amended Complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires each averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, with enough detail to guide discovery. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after providing Sherman with a second opportunity to amend his complaint, apprising him of the deficiencies of his pleading, and warning him that failure to amend would result in dismissal. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261-62.

Sherman's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

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