Case Name: Mark Conrad FAUROT, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-08
Citations: 357 F. App'x 137
Docket Number: No. 08-17743
Parties: Mark Conrad FAUROT, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 357
Pages: 137–138

Head Matter:
Mark Conrad FAUROT, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.A. TERHUNE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-17743.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 17, 2009.
Filed Dec. 8, 2009.
Mark Conrad Faurot, II, Represa, CA, pro se.
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Mark Conrad Faurot, II, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir.2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice because the prolix allegations in Faurot's 516-page complaint did not comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading 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 plaintiffs complaint because it failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments).
Faurof s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.