Janetta L. Sconiers v. Judicial Council of California;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JANETTA L. SCONIERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15176
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00113-LJO-SMS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Janetta L. Sconiers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action and declaring her a vexatious litigant. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
FILED
DEC 02 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 3 --

Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (Fed. R. Civ. P.
41(b) dismissal); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990)
(vexatious litigant order). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sconiers’ action
because Sconiers failed to comply with Rule 8(a)’s requirement of a short and
plain statement of the claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674
(Rule 8(a) is violated when a complaint is excessively “verbose, confusing and
almost entirely conclusory”); Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Rule 8(a) has been held to be violated by a pleading
that was needlessly long, or a complaint that was highly repetitious, or confused, or
consisted of incomprehensible rambling.” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by entering a pre-filing order
against Sconiers because she had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and the
district court developed an adequate record for review, made findings regarding her
frivolous litigation history, and narrowly tailored the restriction. See De Long, 912
F.2d at 1147-48 (discussing factors to consider before imposing pre-filing
restrictions on a vexatious litigant).
We reject Sconiers’ contentions regarding the district court’s admonishment
12-15176 2

-- 2 of 3 --

of Ralston L. Courtney, the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction, and the
district court’s alleged bias against her.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Sconiers’ requests for judicial notice, set forth in her opening brief, are
denied as unnecessary.
Sconiers’ motions, filed on July 13, 2012, are denied.
AFFIRMED.
12-15176 3

-- 3 of 3 --