Mark Faurot, II v. C. Terhune , 357 F. App'x 137 ( 2009 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 08 2009
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK CONRAD FAUROT, II, No. 08-17743
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00254-MCE-
DAD
v.
C. A. TERHUNE; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 17, 2009 **
Before: ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Mark Conrad Faurot, II, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the
defendants violated his civil rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
tk/Research
§ 1291. We review de novo. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064
(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice because
the prolix allegations in Faurot’s 516-page complaint did not comply with Rule
8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
(requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80
(9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to set
forth simple, concise and direct averments).
Faurot’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
tk/Research 2 08-17743