Jerome Robinson v. Howard Saxe , 551 F. App'x 337 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 31 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEROME RENE ROBINSON, No. 12-55273
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04289-ODW-RZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
HOWARD SAXE; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Otis D. Wright, II, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Jerome Rene Robinson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims for
failure to provide a short and plain statement of his claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 8. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
*
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).
novo. Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order)
(dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Dominguez v. Miller, 51 F.3d 1502, 1508
n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Robinson’s action after giving
Robinson two opportunities to amend because his second amended complaint was
lengthy and overly detailed, included fifty-three claims, and named more than a
dozen supervisory defendants who were not alleged to have personally participated
in the alleged violations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (stating that a complaint must
contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction and
the claims for relief); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1996)
(Rule 8 is an independent ground for dismissal and, regardless of the merits of the
allegations, requires each averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct
in stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong).
We reject Robinson’s contentions regarding the district court’s failure to
identify defects in any one of his claims or assess them on the merits; consider the
importance of his facial challenges, including on behalf of others; and specifically
address the magistrate judge’s recommendation or his objections to the same.
AFFIRMED.
2 12-55273