Crispin Granados v. Padilla

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 18 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CRISPIN GRANADOS, No. 21-16198 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-02039-SPL-MHB v. MEMORANDUM* PADILLA, SSU, Sgt.; BALLAS, CO; CASTILLO, Sgt.; DIAZ, Correction Officer, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 15, 2023** Before: TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Crispin Granados appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Pickern v. Pier 1 * 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). Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Granados’s action because after repeated amendment, Granados’s operative complaint failed to comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)-(3) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that a pleader is entitled to relief” and must contain a “demand for the relief sought”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory” violates Rule 8). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-16198