Case Name: Martin Allen JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Warden OPS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-30
Citations: 350 F. App'x 187
Docket Number: No. 08-35686
Parties: Martin Allen JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Warden OPS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 350
Pages: 187–188

Head Matter:
Martin Allen JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Brian BELLEQUE, Warden OPS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-35686.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 13, 2009.
Filed Oct. 30, 2009.
Martin Allen Johnson, Salem, OR, pro se.
Leigh Salmon, Samuel Abraham Kubernick, Esquire, AGOR-Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: B. FLETCHER, LEAVY, and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Oregon state prisoner Martin Allen Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson's action for failure to cure the deficiencies in his complaint after the court twice granted him leave to amend and provided specific instructions on how he could amend his complaint to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a) (stating that a complaint must contain a "short and plain statement" of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction and the claims for relief;) McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-79 (concluding that a court may dismiss an action for noncompliance with Rule 8 after considering less drastic alternatives).
Johnson's motion to supplement the record is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.