Opinion
21-35761
06-29-2022
BRENDA M. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington No. 3:21-cv-05242-MJP Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
Brenda M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court's determination of whether a complaint complies with the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson's action because Johnson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim or to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content allowing the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged; conclusory allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) ("The Federal Rules require that averments be simple, concise, and direct." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson's motion for recusal because Johnson failed to establish any basis for disqualification. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and circumstances requiring disqualification).
Johnson's motion for in forma pauperis status (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied as unnecessary. Johnson's miscellaneous motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 10) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).