Case Name: Thomas HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.D. SCOTT; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-19
Citations: 185 F. App'x 684
Docket Number: No. 05-16465
Parties: Thomas HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.D. SCOTT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 185
Pages: 684–684

Head Matter:
Thomas HENDERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J.D. SCOTT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-16465.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 12, 2006.
Decided June 19, 2006.
Thomas Henderson, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: WALLACE, KLEINFELD and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Thomas Henderson, a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action for failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and its order to file a third amended complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Henderson's amended complaints did not comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) and he was warned that the failure to file a third amended complaint would lead to the dismissal of his action. See Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir.1981); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262.
Henderson's remaining contentions are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.