Case Name: Earnest C. WOODS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-07-06
Citations: 328 F. App'x 481
Docket Number: No. 08-16659
Parties: Earnest C. WOODS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before PAEZ, TALLMAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 481–482

Head Matter:
Earnest C. WOODS, II, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-16659.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 16, 2009.
Filed July 6, 2009.
Earnest Cassell Woods, II, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
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
California state prisoner Earnest C. Woods, II appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing the amended complaint in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's dismissal for failure to state a claim. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order). We vacate and remand.
The district court dismissed Woods's complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 on the basis that the complaint was prolix and obscure. Although Woods's complaint is lengthy and contains sections that fail to connect an allegation with any particular defendant, it should not have been dismissed because it also delineated a number of claims with sufficient specificity and detail. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep't, 530 F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir.2008) (remanding a Rule 8 dismissal after determining that, although the complaint contained excessive detail, it was intelligible and clearly delineated the claims and the relevant defendants, and noting that the district court could strike the surplusage from the complaint). We remand for additional proceedings consistent with this disposition.
VACATED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.