Tucker v. Stewart
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Milton Lee Tucker appeals the district court’s order dismissing his action without prejudice for failure to comply with Fed. R.Civ.P. 8. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.
We review a dismissal for failure to comply with Rule 8 for abuse of discretion. Carrigan v. California State Legislature, 263 F.2d 560, 565-66 (9th Cir.1959). Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Rule 8(e)(1) requires that “[e]ach averment of a pleading ... be simple, concise, and direct.”
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Mchenry v. RenneCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
- Carrigan v. California State LegislatureCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1959
3Cited by6 opinions
- Damon Witherbee v. Dan DowDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2022
- Evelyn Martinez v. City of Los AngelesDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021
- James B. Jordan v. PlaffDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2023
- Kendall DeJuan Simon v. State of CaliforniaDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021
- Leonardo Magallon v. Bureau of PrisonsDistrict Court, C.D. California · 2021
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.