The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
18-16215•Margaret Verrees, M.d. v. James Davis, M.d.;
18-16215Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJul 19, 2019
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARGARET VERREES, M.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JAMES DAVIS, M.D.; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 18-16215
D.C. No. 1:16-cv-01392-LJO-SKO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 15, 2019**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
Margaret Verrees, M.D. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for
failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84
* 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
JUL 19 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
-- 1 of 2 --
2 18-16215
F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Verrees’s action
because the second amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 despite
multiple warnings and instructions to Verrees regarding the federal pleading
requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming
dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy,
and largely irrelevant”).
To the extent Verrees contends that the district court should have granted
further leave to amend, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of
Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and
explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend
when amendment would be futile”).
AFFIRMED.
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.