Case Name: Kevin POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-19
Citations: 648 F. App'x 735
Docket Number: No. 14-17273
Parties: Kevin POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 648
Pages: 735–736

Head Matter:
Kevin POPE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jack PALMER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-17273.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 13, 2016.
Filed April 19, 2016.
Kevin Pope, Indian NV, pro se.
Clark G. Leslie, Esq., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Nevada Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Nevada state prisoner Kevin Pope appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district court's dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1981). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Pope's action without prejudice because, after being warned of the possibility of dismissal, Pope failed to comply with Rule 8(a)'s requirement of a short and plain statement of the claims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir.1996) (affirming a dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that "[p]rolix, confusing complaints . impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges").
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pope's motion for reconsideration because Pope failed to demonstrate any grounds for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (setting forth standard of review and explaining grounds warranting reconsideration).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pope's motion for appointment of counsel because Pope failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir.2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
We reject as unsupported Pope's arguments that the district court erred by denying him an increase in the copywork limit, and concluding it lacked jurisdiction over the motions Pope filed after the notice of appeal.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.