Legal Opinion
McHenry v. Renne
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided May 28, 1996No. 94-15179PublishedCited by 1,056 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge:
The district judge dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12, and 41 because it did not contain a short and plain statement of their claims for relief, did not give defendants a fair opportunity to frame a responsive pleading, and did not give the court a clear statement of claims. The district court had given plaintiffs three opportunities to amend the complaint in accord with the judge’s instructions, but the third amended complaint restated the prior ones without curing their deficiencies. We affirm.
FACTS
We take the facts from…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination UnitSupreme Court of the United States · 1993
- Jerry L. Branch, Valenna Branch, Colby Branch v. Dale L. Tunnell, Individually and as Special Agent of Bureau of Land Management, State of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Joseph Nevijel v. North Coast Life Insurance Co., a Washington CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1981
- McCalden v. California Library Ass'nCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1990
- Kurt Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling CommissionCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1971
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1,056 opinions
- Cafasso v. General Dynamics C4 Systems, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
- Mendiondo v. Centinela Hospital Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2008
- Mchenry v. RenneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Vance v. County of Santa ClaraDistrict Court, N.D. California · 1996
- Jiggetts v. District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2017
1,051 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.