From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bishop v. Schriro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 16, 2007
224 F. App'x 704 (9th Cir. 2007)

Opinion

No. 05-16416.

Submitted March 12, 2007.

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed March 16, 2007.

Stephen Bishop, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-04-00353-SMM.

Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


Arizona state prisoner Stephen Bishop appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Bishop's action without prejudice because his Amended Complaint, like its predecessor, did not contain a "short and plain" statement of his claims for relief as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177-78.

Bishop's remaining contentions lack merit.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Bishop v. Schriro

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Mar 16, 2007
224 F. App'x 704 (9th Cir. 2007)
Case details for

Bishop v. Schriro

Case Details

Full title:Stephen BISHOP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dora B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Mar 16, 2007

Citations

224 F. App'x 704 (9th Cir. 2007)