Case Name: Roger ROMERO; Monique Romero, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Rodney KIRKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-08
Citations: 328 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 06-16620
Parties: Roger ROMERO; Monique Romero, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Rodney KIRKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
Roger ROMERO; Monique Romero, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Rodney KIRKLAND; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 06-16620.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 8, 2009.
Roger Romero, Bishop, CA, pro se.
Monique Romero, Bishop, CA, pro se.
Amy Julia Winn Fax, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General (Sac), Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Roger and Monique Romero appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice their action for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for violation of Rule 8 because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support federal jurisdiction or any federal claim for relief. 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).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.