Court Opinion

ID: 9901368
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-21 18:01:39.439609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:31.572258
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       NOV 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERT MICHAEL LINDBLAD,                        No. 22-16200

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:21-cv-06606-SI

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
CARLOS G. BOLANOS, Chief; ANDREW
CONSTENTINO, Officer; JIMMY CHUNG;
AZAR, Officer; CHEUNG, Officer;
COUNTY COMMISSION OF SAN
MATEO COUNTY; SAN MATEO
COUNTY; JENNIFER ANN STALZER;
CHENG, Officer; CITY OF MILLBRAE;
SAFEWAY GROCERY OUTLET,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Northern District of California
                     Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted November 14, 2023**

Before:      SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

      Robert Michael Lindblad appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

      *
             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).
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a variety of police misconduct.

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Thompson v.

Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(b)(6)); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006)

(dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm.

      The district court properly dismissed Lindblad’s action because after an

opportunity to amend, Lindblad’s operative complaint failed to comply with Rule

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

of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief”); Hatch v. Reliance Ins.

Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir. 1985) (upholding a Rule 8(a) dismissal of a

complaint that “exceeded 70 pages in length, [and was] confusing and

conclusory”); 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).

      We reject as without merit Lindblad’s contentions concerning a default

judgment, sanctions, and slip opinions.

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                    22-16200