Bruce REMINGTON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John MATHSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Decided: May 12, 2020
Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Bruce Remington, Pro Se Nicholas R. Kloeppel, Attorney, The Mitchell Law Firm, LLP, Eureka, CA, Russell S. Gans, Ryan T. Plotz, Mitchell, Brisso, Delaney & Vrieze, Eureka, CA, for Defendants-Appellees John Mathson, Joy Mathson, Ryan Plotz, Paul A. Brisso, Nicholas R. Kloeppel David Scott Nims, Janssen Malloy LLP, Eureka, CA, for Defendant-Appellee David F. Beach, Esquire, Attorney, Deborah Bull, Attorney, Amy Suzette Winters, Perry, Johnson, Anderson, Miller & Moskowitz, LLP, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee City of Eureka David F. Beach, Esquire, Attorney, Miller & Moskowitz, LLP, Santa Rosa, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Boyd Davis Chris Carol Hamer, Attorney, Stokes Hamer Kirk & Eads, LLP, Arcata, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Jeff Nelson
Bruce Remington appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to follow the district court's orders regarding Rule 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Remington's action with prejudice for failure to comply with Rule 8 because, despite an opportunity to amend, Remington's amended complaint was prolix, confusing, and failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims. See id. at 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (no abuse of discretion in dismissing a complaint for violation of Rule 8 because the complaint was prolix, confusing, and contained irrelevant material); 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 by denying leave to amend. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth the standard of review and explaining that a “district court's discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where [the] plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Remington's motion for reconsideration because Remington 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 reject as meritless Remington's contentions regarding his RICO statement, the alleged violation of his due process rights, and the dismissal of his motion for leave to file a second amended complaint as moot.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
Nelson's request for costs, set forth in the answering brief (Docket Entry No. 39), is denied as premature.
Was this helpful?
Response sent, thank you
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.