LAMON v. ALLISON (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-29No. No. 20-16284

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of Lamon's § 1983 complaint for violation of Rule 8 pleading standards, as well as the denial of his motions for reconsideration, preliminary injunction, and appointment of counsel.

Barry Louis Lamon, representing himself, appealed the district court's dismissal of his civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed his action without prejudice because his second amended complaint violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 by being verbose, unclear, and failing to state the bases of his claims plainly, despite being given two opportunities to revise it.

The appellate court affirmed all of the district court's decisions. It found no abuse of discretion in dismissing the complaint for noncompliance with Rule 8's pleading requirements, denying his motion for reconsideration because he showed no valid grounds for relief, and rejecting his motion for a preliminary injunction because he did not specify what relief he sought. The court also lacked jurisdiction over his appeal of a temporary restraining order denial and properly denied his request for appointed counsel because he failed to show exceptional circumstances warranting such appointment.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether dismissal for Rule 8 violation was abuse of discretion when complaint was prolix and failed to clearly state claims despite two amendment opportunities
Whether denial of motion for reconsideration lacked reasonable basis
Whether motion for preliminary injunction was properly denied when plaintiff failed to identify sought relief
Whether appointment of counsel should have been granted absent showing of exceptional circumstances

Procedural posture

Lamon appealed pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his § 1983 action and denying various motions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

Barry Louis Lamon appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a district courts dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to follow the district courts orders regarding Rule 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lamons action without prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 because, despite two opportunities to amend, Lamons second amended complaint was prolix, confusing, and failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims. 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, 84 F.3d at 1177-78 (no abuse of discretion in dismissing a complaint for violation of Rule 8 because the complaint was prolix, confusing, and contained irrelevant material).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lamons motion for reconsideration because Lamon failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 or 60).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lamons motion for a preliminary injunction because Lamon failed to identify the relief sought in his motion. See Jackson v. City & County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014) (setting forth standard of review and requirements for a preliminary injunction). We lack jurisdiction over Lamons appeal of the denial of his motion for a temporary restraining order. See Religious Tech. Ctr., Church of Scientology Intl, Inc. v. Scott, 869 F.2d 1306, 1308 (9th Cir. 1989) (denial of a temporary restraining order is appealable only if the denial is tantamount to the denial of a preliminary injunction).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lamons motion for appointment of counsel because Lamon failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement for appointment of counsel).

Lamons motion to appoint counsel (Docket Entry No. 4) is denied.

AFFIRMED.