Opinion
20-17179
07-26-2021
SHAYKH MUHAMMAD ABDUL BIN TALAL AL SAUD, AKA Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khalid Bin Talal Alsaud, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. RODNEY CARR; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, No. 2:20-cv-00449-SPL-JFM Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
Arizona state prisoner Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Bin Talal Al Saud appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Al Saud's action because Al Saud failed to comply with Rule 8 despite prior warnings and instructions regarding the federal pleading requirements. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (Rule 8 requires the complaint "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests" (alteration in original, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (complaint does not comply with Rule 8 if "one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory").
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.