Joe Sherman v. HENDERSON, Yolo County District Attorney;

08-16597Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJun 3, 2010

Full text

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
JOE SHERMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
HENDERSON, Yolo County District
Attorney; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 08-16597
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-02414-GEB-
GGH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 25, 2010**
Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Joe Sherman, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging false arrest,
malicious persecution, conspiracy and other claims. We have jurisdiction under
FILED
JUN 03 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s dismissal for failure to
state a claim, Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004),
and we review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to
comply with a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.
1992). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Sherman’s First Amended Complaint
for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires each
averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, with enough detail to
guide discovery. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after
providing Sherman with a second opportunity to amend his complaint, apprising
him of the deficiencies of his pleading, and warning him that failure to amend
would result in dismissal. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261-62.
Sherman’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.