Gavin B. Davis v. John Gregory Unruh, an individual;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GAVIN B. DAVIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN GREGORY UNRUH, an individual;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 16-56306
D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00897-BTM-
WVG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gavin B. Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his
action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
* 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). Accordingly, Davis’s
request for oral argument set forth in the opening brief is denied.
FILED
FEB 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 16-56306
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998).
We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Davis’s action
for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Despite the district court’s warning,
Davis’s amended complaint consisted of 159 pages -- 58 pages more than the
original complaint -- as well as 172 pages of exhibits. See McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was
“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Smith v.
Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised
by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --