Case Name: Robert CHAMBERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-10
Citations: 474 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 10-55754
Parties: Robert CHAMBERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 576–576

Head Matter:
Robert CHAMBERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 10-55754.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 26, 2012.
Filed July 10, 2012.
Robert Chambers, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, 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
Robert Chambers appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while a pretrial detainee at Los Angeles County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A or 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because the third amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring pleading to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief'); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.1996) (Rule 8 requires each averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong, and is a basis for dismissal independent of failure to state a claim).
Chambers' remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Chambers' request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.