Larry Lee Moore v. Maricopa County Juvenile Court;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LARRY LEE MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MARICOPA COUNTY JUVENILE
COURT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-17003
D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01553-JJT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John Joseph Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Larry Lee Moore appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 26 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 18-17003
U.S.C. § 1915A. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000). 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). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Moore’s action because Moore failed
to allege facts sufficient to state any plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d
338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are to be construed
liberally, a plaintiff must present factual allegations sufficient to state a plausible
claim for relief); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (a plaintiff
must allege facts that “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Moore’s action
for failure to comply with Rule 8. Despite the district court’s warning and
instruction, Moore’s amended complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to
clearly allege the bases for his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a
pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader
is entitled to relief”); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 (affirming dismissal of a
complaint because it was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and
largely irrelevant”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued

-- 2 of 3 --

3 18-17003
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending requests and motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --