Case Name: Glen BROEMER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-01-18
Citations: 163 F. App'x 572
Docket Number: No. 04-57117
Parties: Glen BROEMER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 163
Pages: 572–572

Head Matter:
Glen BROEMER, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. State of CALIFORNIA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 04-57117.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 9, 2006.
Decided Jan. 18, 2006.
Glen Broemer, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Karen S. Darling, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Henry Patrick Nelson, Esq., Nelson & Fulton, Robyn C. Crowther, Esq., Caldwell, Leslie, Newcombe and Pettit, Rebecca Torrey, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Marmaro LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Malcolm A. Heinicke, Esq., Munger Tolies & Olson, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Snyder Dorenfield, Esq., Michael D. Margolin, Esq., Snyder Dorenfeld LLP, Calabasas, CA, Michele Beal Bagneris, Pasadena City Attorney’s Office, Pasadena, CA, Louis M. Marlin, Esq., Marlin & Saltzman, Anaheim, CA, M. Taylor Florence, Esq., Bullivant Houser Bailey Pendergrass and Hoffman, Gold River, CA, Barry L. Rodolff, Esq., Campion Rodolff LLP, Orange, CA, Gregory E. Stone, Esq., Stone, Rosenblatt & Cha, Encino, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: HUG, O’SCANNLAIN, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Glen Broemer appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging defendants conspired to contaminate his food to the detriment of his health and personal relationships. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's sua sponte dismissal, Omar v. SeaLand Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987), and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 912 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Broemer's action because his amended complaint did not contain a "short and plain" statement of the claims for relief as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.1984). Moreover, given the nature of Broemer's allegations, amendment would be futile. See id. at 650-51.
Broemer's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.