FIELDS v. RICHMOND AMERICA HOMES (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Former pretrial detainee Johnathan Arthur Fields appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 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 under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Fields’s action for failure to comply with its order to amend the complaint to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Fields’s amended complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims. See id. at 1179-80 (affirming dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 because it was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); see also 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”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Fields’s motion for reconsideration because Fields failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., 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).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.