Court Opinion

ID: 9640267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:01:58.800308+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:28.770416
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 22 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARELIOUS REED,                                  No. 22-55837

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:21-cv-07545-JVS-MRW

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., DBA Wells
Fargo Dealer Services, Inc.,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Central District of California
                    James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

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

      Arelious Reed appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal and state law claims regarding an automobile

loan. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of

      *
             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).
Civil Procedure. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We

affirm.

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Reed’s action

because, despite two opportunities to amend, Reed failed to allege the elements of

any claim or explain how any of his allegations related to any of his asserted

causes of action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading contain “a

short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to

relief”).

       The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Reed’s motion for

reconsideration because Reed failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth the standard of review and grounds for reconsideration

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)).

             AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                      22-55837