Jehan Mir v. City of Torrance ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEHAN ZEB MIR, M.D., No. 18-56543
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-01191-RGK-PJW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF TORRANCE; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Jehan Zeb Mir, M.D. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to comply with Federal Rule of
*
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).
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 Mir’s action
because Mir failed to comply with Rule 8 despite multiple warnings and
instructions regarding the federal pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);
McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (complaint does not comply with Rule 8 if “one cannot
determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what
theory”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981)
(dismissal under Rule 8 was proper where the complaint was “confusing and
conclusory”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to
amend the complaint because amendment would have been futile. See Cervantes
v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting
forth standard of review and explaining that leave to amend may be denied when
amendment would be futile); Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540
F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he district court’s discretion to deny leave to
amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has previously amended the
complaint.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Mir’s motion requesting that his motion to transfer his appeal be decided by
an “independent panel” (Docket Entry No. 47) is denied. Mir’s motion to transfer
2 18-56543
his appeal (Docket Entry No. 45) is denied.
Iungerich & Spackman, Paul Spackman, and Russell Iungerich’s request for
attorney’s fees and costs, set forth in their answering brief, is denied without
prejudice to refiling in compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39
and Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.
All other pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 18-56543