Court Opinion

ID: 9556771
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 17:00:59.16206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:00:56.264193
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CRISPIN GRANADOS,                               No.    21-16198

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02039-SPL-MHB

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PADILLA, SSU, Sgt.; BALLAS, CO;
CASTILLO, Sgt.; DIAZ, Correction Officer,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                            for the District of Arizona
                   Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Arizona state prisoner Crispin Granados appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 8 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Granados’s action because after

repeated amendment, Granados’s operative complaint failed to comply with Rule

8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)-(3) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain

statement of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief” and must contain

a “demand for the relief sought”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671,

674 (9th Cir. 1981) (a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory”

violates Rule 8).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   21-16198