Case Name: Jonathan Cataldo BERTANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-14
Citations: 568 F. App'x 531
Docket Number: No. 12-16990
Parties: Jonathan Cataldo BERTANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 568
Pages: 531–532

Head Matter:
Jonathan Cataldo BERTANELLI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-16990.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014
Filed April 14, 2014.
Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, 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
Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir.2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Bertanelli's action because the operative First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.1996) (under Fed. R.Civ.P. 8, a complaint must set forth simple, concise, and direct averments indicating "which defendants are liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs"); see also Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir.2000) (discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) requirements).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bertanelli's motion for reconsideration because Bertanelli failed to establish a basis for such relief. See D. Ariz. Loe. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir.1993) (reviewing application of local rules for an abuse of discretion); see also Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).
Bertanelli's contentions that the court failed to construe liberally his First Amended Complaint, and that he stated a conspiracy claim, are not supported by the record.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.