Dinkins v. U.S.

Full title: Melvin DINKINS, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Dec 27, 2001

23 F. App'x 834 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

23 Fed.Appx. 834 (9th Cir. 2001) Melvin DINKINS, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant--Appellee. No. 00-16656. D.C. No. CIV-00-05825-AWI. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. December 27, 2001

Submitted December 17, 2001. ^*

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TROTT and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Melvin Dinkins appeals pro se the district court's dismissal without prejudice of his action for failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion dismissals for failure to comply with an order requiring amendment of a complaint, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

Dismissal was proper because Dinkins' amended complaint cited two criminal statutes as the only basis for federal jurisdiction and otherwise failed to comply with the district court's previous order requiring amendment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-79. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion. See Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.