LAW.coLAW.co

AL SAUD v. CARR (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-07-26No. No. 20-17179

Summary

Holding. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action because the prisoner failed to comply with Rule 8 despite previous warnings and guidance on federal pleading standards.

An Arizona state prisoner appealed the dismissal of his federal and state law claims. The district court dismissed his action for failing to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, which requires complaints to provide defendants with fair notice of the claims and legal grounds. The prisoner had received prior warnings and instructions about federal pleading requirements but did not cure the deficiencies in his complaint.

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

Key issues

  • Compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 pleading requirements
  • Whether dismissal for deficient pleading constituted an abuse of discretion
  • Adequacy of notice to defendant regarding claims and legal theories

Procedural posture

The appellant, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appealed from a district court judgment dismissing his complaint for failure to comply with federal pleading rules.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Bin Talal Al Saud appeals pro se from the district courts judgment dismissing his 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 Federal Rule of 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 Al Sauds action because Al Saud failed to comply with Rule 8 despite prior warnings and instructions regarding the federal pleading requirements. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (Rule 8 requires the complaint “give the defendant fair notice of what the ․ claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (alteration in original, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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”).

AFFIRMED.