Stith v. Busch

Full title: Kimberly Allen STITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kimberly BUSCH; Sandra Bono…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Feb 23, 2001

4 F. App'x 521 (9th Cir. 2001)

Opinion

4 Fed.Appx. 521 (9th Cir. 2001) Kimberly Allen STITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kimberly BUSCH; Sandra Bono; Katherine Anderson; Robert Stevenson; Leona Salazar; Monica Neuman; Benigno Dehoyos; Eugene Siegel; James Neavitt; Stanley Parry; Collins, Collins, Muir & Traver; Paul Rupard; County of Los Angeles; State of California; Ronald George; Stanley Mosk; Ming Chin; Marvin Baxter; Kathryn Mickle Werdegar; Joyce L. Kennard; Janice Brown; Roger Boren; Morio Fukutu; Michael Nott; Charles S. Vogel; Norman Epstein; Fred J. Woods; William A. McLaughlin; John P. Farrell; Kenneth Freeman; Emily Stevens; Armondo Moreno, Defendants-Appellees. No. 00-55177. D.C. No. CV-99-06837-CAS. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. February 23, 2001

Submitted February 12, 2001. ¹

1 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, we deny Stith's request for oral argument.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION.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

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding.

Before LEAVY, THOMAS, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ²

2 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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Kimberly Allen Stith appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing his civil rights action for failure to comply with a court order to provide "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court's Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, see McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

Because Stith's second amended complaint failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments, we conclude that the district court acted within its discretion in dismissing his action with prejudice. See id.

Stith's remaining contentions lack merit.

We grant the County of Los Angeles's request for judicial notice.

AFFIRMED.