Robert Stapleton v. City of Phoenix, an incorporated municipality including, but not limited to, the Mayor;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Stapleton’s
request for oral argument is denied.
JK/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERT STAPLETON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CITY OF PHOENIX, an incorporated
municipality including, but not limited to,
the Mayor; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-17774
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00681-SRB
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Susan R. Bolton, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 16, 2010**
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Robert Stapleton appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
FILED
MAR 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

JK/Research 08-17774 2
action alleging civil rights violations in connection with state criminal zoning
convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We
affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for
violation of Rule 8 because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support
federal jurisdiction or any federal claim for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (stating
that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the
court’s jurisdiction and the claims for relief); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-79
(concluding that a court may dismiss an action for noncompliance with Rule 8 after
considering less drastic alternatives).
Stapleton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --