Robert Michael Lindblad v. CARLOS G. BOLANOS, Chief

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT MICHAEL LINDBLAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CARLOS G. BOLANOS, Chief; ANDREW
CONSTENTINO, Officer; JIMMY CHUNG;
AZAR, Officer; CHEUNG, Officer;
COUNTY COMMISSION OF SAN
MATEO COUNTY; SAN MATEO
COUNTY; JENNIFER ANN STALZER;
CHENG, Officer; CITY OF MILLBRAE;
SAFEWAY GROCERY OUTLET,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-16200
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-06606-SI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Susan Illston, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, WARDLAW, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Michael Lindblad appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
* 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 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-16200
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a variety of police misconduct.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Thompson v.
Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6)); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006)
(dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Lindblad’s action because after an
opportunity to amend, Lindblad’s operative complaint failed to comply with Rule
8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief”); Hatch v. Reliance Ins.
Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir. 1985) (upholding a Rule 8(a) dismissal of a
complaint that “exceeded 70 pages in length, [and was] confusing and
conclusory”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)
(a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory” violates Rule 8).
We reject as without merit Lindblad’s contentions concerning a default
judgment, sanctions, and slip opinions.
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --