Kevin Pope v. Jack Palmer;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVIN POPE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JACK PALMER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 14-17273
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00357-MMD-
VPC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 13, 2016**
Before: FARRIS, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Kevin Pope appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal claims.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of
FILED
APR 19 2016
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 --

Civil Procedure 8. Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.
1981). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Pope’s action
without prejudice because, after being warned of the possibility of dismissal, Pope
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); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-
80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming a dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that
“[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair burdens on litigants and
judges”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pope’s motion for
reconsideration because Pope failed to demonstrate any grounds 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 explaining grounds warranting
reconsideration).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Pope’s motion for
appointment of counsel because Pope failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Cano v. Taylor, 739 F.3d 1214, 1218 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting
forth standard of review and requirements for appointment of counsel).
We reject as unsupported Pope’s arguments that the district court erred by
14-17273 2

-- 2 of 3 --

denying him an increase in the copywork limit, and concluding it lacked
jurisdiction over the motions Pope filed after the notice of appeal.
AFFIRMED.
14-17273 3

-- 3 of 3 --