Jerry Brenden v. Lori Carlson , 586 F. App'x 354 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 3 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERRY A. BRENDEN, No. 13-35034
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:12-cv-00872-JLR
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LORI CARLSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2014**
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Jerry A. Brenden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his action against his former employer. We review for an abuse of
discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an order to amend the complaint to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
*
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).
1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brenden’s action
with prejudice because, despite being given an opportunity to amend, Brenden’s
operative first amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8, and Brenden failed
either to respond to the district court’s order to show cause with a second amended
complaint that complied with Rule 8, or to explain why his action should not be
dismissed. See id. (affirming dismissal where the plaintiff failed to amend the
complaint in compliance with Rule 8); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651
F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981) (a complaint which fails to comply with Rule 8 may
be dismissed with prejudice under Rule 41(b)).
All pending motions are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35034