Eric K'napp v. California Department of Corr , 599 F. App'x 791 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 16 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP, No. 14-16243
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01895-LJO-MJS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS & REHABILITATION;
et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2015**
Before: FISHER, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Eric Charles Rodney K’napp appeals pro se from
the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to
the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
*
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).
We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an
order to file an amended complaint that comports with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing K’napp’s action
because, after being warned of the possibility of dismissal, Knapp filed another
complaint that was not in compliance with the district court’s order and Rule 8.
See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors
relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, and explaining that,
although dismissal is a harsh penalty, a district court’s dismissal should not be
disturbed unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that the court below
committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing
of the relevant factors” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also
McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be
simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for
which wrong).
We reject K’napp’s contentions that he was not required to comply with the
magistrate judge’s orders, and that the district court judge and magistrate judge
demonstrated bias and failed to consider his pro se status.
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
2 14-16243
appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
3 14-16243