VERREES v. DAVIS (2019)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Margaret VERREES, M.D., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James DAVIS, M.D.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-16215

Decided: July 19, 2019

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Margaret Verrees, Pro Se Michael F. Ball, Gary Allan Hunt, Attorney, McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard, Wayte & Carruth LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee James Davis, M.D. Debra J. Albin-Riley, Sara T. Schneider, Attorney, Arent Fox LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Scott Wells, Community Medical Centers, Community Regional Medical Center, Sante' Health Systems Advantek Benefits Administrators Adam Garth, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendants-Appellees Joyce Fields-Keene, University Neurosurgery Associates Mark B. Canepa, Attorney, White Canepa LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Central California Faculty Medical Group

MEMORANDUM **

Margaret Verrees, M.D. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 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 Verrees’s action because the second amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8 despite multiple warnings and instructions to Verrees regarding the federal pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).

To the extent Verrees contends that the district court should have granted further leave to amend, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Chappel v. Lab. Corp. of Am., 232 F.3d 719, 725-26 (9th Cir. 2000) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that “[a] district court acts within its discretion to deny leave to amend when amendment would be futile”).

AFFIRMED.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law