MICHAEL L. McLAUGHLIN v. SHANNON McCLOUD

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL L. McLAUGHLIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SHANNON McCLOUD; JAMES M.
MILBURN; ROBERT D. HIBPSHMAN;
JOHN BODICK; MATTHIAS C. CICOTTE;
DARIN A. MEDINA; DAVID H.
CLEVELAND; MATTHEW ZEEK;
CURTIS J. BROWN; ROY L. SMITH;
BRIAN D. JOHNSON; BYRON J.
KINCAID; GARY HAMES; AMY
FENSKE; DONALD K. CARLON;
JONATHAN C. BARCUS,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-35339
D.C. No. 3:18-cv-00085-SLG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska
Sharon L. Gleason, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 14, 2023**
Before: SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
* 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 17 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-35339
Alaska state prisoner Michael L. McLaughlin 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 under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th
Cir. 2006) (determination of whether a complaint complies with Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed McLaughlin’s federal claims because
McLaughlin’s operative first amended complaint 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 the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84
F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (a complaint does not comply with Rule 8 if “one
cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on
what theory”); 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).
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).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --