Leanne J. Hensley v. Zgf Architects, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LEANNE J. HENSLEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ZGF ARCHITECTS, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
and
KATHY BERG; et al.,
Defendants.
No. 21-35965
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00793-JR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael W. Mosman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 17, 2023**
Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Leanne J. Hensley appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
* 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
APR 21 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35965
dismissing for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 her action
alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963,
968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Hensley’s action because after repeated
amendment, Hensley’s operative amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of
the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint does not comply with Rule 8 if “one
cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on
what theory”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)
(a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory” violates Rule 8).
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).
Hensley’s motions to refer this appeal to mediation (Docket Entry No. 8),
coordinate her appeals (Docket Entry No. 9), and to supplement the record (Docket
Entry No. 27) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --