RICHARD L. NEVITT, AKA Shakur abdel-Haleem v. Cynthia Bradley;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
RICHARD L. NEVITT, AKA Shakur
abdel-Haleem,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CYNTHIA BRADLEY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-35503
D.C. No. 3:08-cv-00226-TMB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Timothy M. Burgess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2010**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Richard L. Nevitt, aka Shakur abdel-Haleem, appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his civil rights action for failure to follow court orders
and for failure to comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We
FILED
DEC 27 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T O F AP PE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-35503 2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion,
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed with
prejudice Nevitt’s proposed third amended complaint, which like the two prior
amended complaints failed to comply with the district court’s previous orders
requiring compliance with Rule 8. See id. at 1179 (district court did not abuse its
discretion by dismissing the plaintiff’s third amended complaint with prejudice for
failure to abide by Rule 8, which requires that each averment of a pleading be
“simple, concise, and direct”); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th
Cir. 2002) (affirming dismissal of action with prejudice for failure to comply with
court order, and explaining factors courts must consider when deciding whether to
dismiss).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --