Summary
affirming Rule 8 dismissal of pro se complaint "contain[ing] a confusing array of vague and undeveloped allegations," and which "did not allege sufficient facts or jurisdictional basis for any federal claim for relief"
Summary of this case from Arrant v. ZambranoOpinion
No. 06-35488.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 13, 2008.
Patrick Hugh Morrison, Salem, OR, pro se.
Richard D. Wasserman, Esq., Erin C. Lagesen, Esq., AGOR — Office of the Oregon Attorney General, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, Donald C. Ashmanskas, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-05-01387-DCA.
Before: BEEZER, FERNANDEZ and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Patrick Hugh Morrison appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his action for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, United States v. Barrera-Moreno, 951 F.2d 1089, 1091 (9th Cir. 1991), and we affirm.
A complaint must contain a "short and plain statement" of the basis for jurisdiction and the claims for relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). Morrison's complaint contains a confusing array of vague and undeveloped allegations and does not allege sufficient facts or jurisdictional basis for any federal claim for relief. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). See McHeury v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996).
The district court also did not abuse its discretion by denying his motion for clarification.
Morrison's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Morrison's motion to show cause is denied.
Appellees' motion to appear is granted. The Clerk shall file appellees' response brief, lodged on May 9, 2007.