Lennie Williams v. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LENNIE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SOCIAL
SERVICES; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-55183
D.C. No. 2:14-cv-07625-JVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Lennie Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims arising from her
employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
* 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
DEC 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 17-55183
abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Williams’s action
for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) because the allegations in the second
amended complaint were vague, confusing and failed to make connections between
specific allegations and individual defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
(pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 (affirming 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 in dismissing Williams’s
second amended complaint without further leave to amend—and with prejudice as
to defendants Philip Browning, Jon Minato, and Dennis Veals—because Williams
failed to comply with the district court’s orders instructing her to file an amended
complaint comporting with Rule 8 after providing Williams with two opportunities
to amend. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002)
(discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d

-- 2 of 3 --

3 17-55183
1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district
court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction”
that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --