Shreves v. Godfrey

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 23 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RICHARD E. SHREVES, No. 24-1692 D.C. No. 6:23-cv-00035-BMM- Plaintiff - Appellant, KLD v. MEMORANDUM* DEMETRIC GODFREY; CRYSTAL THOMPSON; BRIAN GOOTKIN; JIM SALMONSEN; CYNTHIA WOLKEN; JIM ANDERSON; SCOTT MCNEIL; CHRIS LAMB; AMANDA KAMBIC; TERRIE STEFALO; KRISTY COBBAN; SALLE ODEN; GREG BUDD; BRIAN BUCKLER; ANTHONY HOLLAND; JUSTIN POMEROY; ANDREW CORNELIUS; NICHOLAS MOE; DAKOTA REESTED; CARRIE WALSTED; DENNIS JOHNSON; WENDY LARSEN, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.  Submitted January 22, 2026** Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges. Richard Shreves appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Shreves’s action because, despite an opportunity to amend, Shreves’s operative complaint failed to comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (a 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, with enough detail to guide discovery”). We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 2 24-1692