David Q. Webb v. State of Washington;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID Q. WEBB,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 22-36008
D.C. No. 3:22-cv-05448-TL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Tana Lin, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 16, 2023**
Before: GRABER, MILLER, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
David Q. Webb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th
Cir. 2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e));
* 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
MAY 23 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-36008
Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006)
(compliance with notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Webb’s action because Webb failed to
allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim and 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 a pleader is entitled to relief”); 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); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009)
(complaint must contain more than bare assertions or a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a claim).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --