From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Howell v. Clans

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 10, 2020
No. 19-16236 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020)

Summary

affirming Rule 8 dismissal of pleading that was vague and confusing

Summary of this case from McGinnis v. Halawa Corr. Facility

Opinion

No. 19-16236

08-10-2020

JANET C. HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMOGUIS CLANS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00025-JAO-RT MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Janet C. Howell appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging federal 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 Howell's action for failure to comply with its order to amend the complaint to comply with Rule 8(a). Despite the district court's warnings and instructions, Howell's amended complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the district court's jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal of complaint that was "argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant"); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (dismissal under Rule 8 was not an abuse of discretion where the complaint was "verbose, confusing and conclusory"); Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999) (establishing factors to consider before dismissing an action as a sanction).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Howell v. Clans

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Aug 10, 2020
No. 19-16236 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020)

affirming Rule 8 dismissal of pleading that was vague and confusing

Summary of this case from McGinnis v. Halawa Corr. Facility
Case details for

Howell v. Clans

Case Details

Full title:JANET C. HOWELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMOGUIS CLANS; et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 10, 2020

Citations

No. 19-16236 (9th Cir. Aug. 10, 2020)

Citing Cases

McGinnis v. Halawa Corr. Facility

Counts I, II, and III fail to comply with Rule 8 and are DISMISSED with leave to amend. See Nevijel v. N.…