John Alfred Panzer I v. U.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN ALFRED PANZER I,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16942
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-01655-MEJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 11, 2017***
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
John Alfred Panzer I appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** Panzer consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16942
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), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Panzer’s action
for failure to comply with Rule 8 because the second amended complaint does not
contain “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that [Panzer] is entitled
to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. 8(a)(2), (d)(1); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1174 (affirming
dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . .
impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Panzer’s second
amended complaint without leave to amend because Panzer was provided with two
opportunities to amend and further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth
standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper
when amendment would be futile); Chodos v. West Publ’g Co., Inc., 292 F.3d 992,
1003 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[W]hen a district court has already granted a plaintiff leave
to amend, its discretion in deciding subsequent motions to amend is particularly
broad.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Panzer’s motion for transcripts, set forth in his opening brief, is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --