Edward P. Lazar v. County of Los Angeles

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWARD P. LAZAR,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-56713
D.C. No. 2:07-cv-07549-MMM-
FFM
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 5, 2010**
Before: RYMER, McKEOWN, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Edward P. Lazar appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his
action alleging violations of his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction
FILED
APR 21 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Hearns v. San
Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Because the district court properly concluded that Lazar’s complaint failed
to meet the pleading standards under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, and Lazar
failed to amend the complaint after obtaining leave to do so, dismissal of the
complaint with prejudice was not an abuse of discretion. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(1)-(3) (stating pleading requirements); Hearns, 530 F.3d at 1129-31
(discussing factors to determine whether initial dismissal under Rule 8 was proper
and whether subsequent dismissal for failure to amend was an abuse of discretion).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --