United States v. 2020-03-10 | 19-15684 | JOHNATHAN FIELDS V. RICHMOND AMERICA HOMES | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHNATHAN ARTHUR FIELDS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

RICHMOND AMERICA HOMES, real
estates corporation; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-15684

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-01194-GMS-
MHB

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 3, 2020
**

Before: MURGUIA, CHRISTEN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Former pretrial detainee Johnathan Arthur Fields appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). McHenry v. Renne,

*
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

MAR 10 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-15684
84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Fields’s action
for failure to comply with its order to amend the complaint to comply with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Fields’s amended complaint was vague, confusing,
and failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims. See id. at 1179-80 (affirming
dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 because it was “argumentative, prolix,
replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
(requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fields’s motion for
reconsideration because Fields failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.
Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.
1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 59 or 60).
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).
AFFIRMED.