Robert Chambers v. Los Angeles County;

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
ROBERT CHAMBERS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55754
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03919-VBF-
PLA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2012**
Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Robert Chambers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his
serious medical needs while a pretrial detainee at Los Angeles County Jail. We
FILED
JUL 10 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55754 2
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A or 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.
2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We
affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action because the third amended
complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring pleading to contain “a short and plain statement
of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne,
84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires each averment of a
pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the
plaintiff for which wrong, and is a basis for dismissal independent of failure to
state a claim).
Chambers’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Chambers’ request for judicial notice is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --