From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

K'Napp v. Knowles

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 26, 2008
295 F. App'x 161 (9th Cir. 2008)

Opinion

No. 07-16225.

Submitted September 8, 2008.

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

Filed September 26, 2008.

Eric Charles Rodney K'Napp, Soledad, CA, pro se.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-06-00453-GEB/GGH.

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Eric Charles Rodney K'napp appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action with prejudice for failing to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

Dismissal was proper because K'napp's second amended complaint failed to comply with the district court's previous order requiring compliance with Rule 8. See id. at 1178-79.

Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing K'napp's second amended complaint with prejudice, after granting leave to amend and determining that further amendment would be futile. See id. (dismissing complaint with prejudice for noncompliance with Rule 8 after first exploring less drastic alternatives).

K'napp's August 22, 2008 motion for necessary injunctive relief is denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

K'Napp v. Knowles

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 26, 2008
295 F. App'x 161 (9th Cir. 2008)
Case details for

K'Napp v. Knowles

Case Details

Full title:Eric Charles Rodney K'NAPP, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNOWLES; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 26, 2008

Citations

295 F. App'x 161 (9th Cir. 2008)