Walter J. Rosales; v. U.s. Department of the Interior;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER J. ROSALES; et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16196
D.C. No.
2:20-cv-00521-KJM-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 24, 2023**
San Francisco, California
Before: BUMATAY, KOH, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs appeal the district court’s dismissal of their second amended
complaint with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) 41(b) for
failing to comply with FRCP Rule 8(a) pleading requirements. We have jurisdiction
* 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
AUG 28 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
dismissal with prejudice for failing to comply with Rule 8, McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), but we review de novo whether the complaint
satisfies Rule 8, In re Dominguez, 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Plaintiffs’ case with prejudice because
Plaintiffs failed to comply with Rule 8 despite prior warnings about the complaint’s
deficiencies. The second amended complaint combined unrelated causes of action,
listed dozens of statutes Defendants allegedly violated in vague and conclusory
terms, and failed to identify which defendants were liable for which claims. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (explaining that Rule 8(a) “demands more than
an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation”); McHenry, 84
F.3d at 1180 (holding that a complaint violates Rule 8 when it lacks “clarity as to
whom plaintiffs are suing for what wrongs”). The district court also appropriately
considered all the relevant factors, including the availability of less drastic remedies,
before it dismissed the complaint with prejudice. See Henry v. Gill Indus., Inc., 983
F.2d 943, 948 (9th Cir. 1993) (listing factors district courts must consider before
dismissing with prejudice under Rule 41(b)). The district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing the case with prejudice.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --