Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon. D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06312-JO. Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding.
Milaudi Karboau, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Portland, OR.
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Former Oregon state prisoner Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among others, various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Karboau's action because, despite an opportunity to amend and multiple extensions of time, Karboau failed to set forth " a short and plain statement" of his claims, and instead, alleged approximately 83 unrelated causes of action against more than 100 defendants for conduct occurring over more than six years of incarceration at various state correctional facilities. Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 (a)(2); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong).
AFFIRMED.