Case Name: Stephen BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-03-16
Citations: 224 F. App'x 704
Docket Number: No. 05-16416
Parties: Stephen BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 704–705

Head Matter:
Stephen BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-16416.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2007.
Filed March 16, 2007.
Stephen Bishop, Florence, AZ, pro se.
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Arizona state prisoner Stephen Bishop appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not err in dismissing Bishop's action without prejudice because his Amended Complaint, like its predecessor, did not contain a "short and plain" statement of his claims for relief as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177-78.
Bishop's remaining contentions lack merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.