LAK v. CALIFORNIA (2020)

MEMORANDUM **

Daniel Kristof Lak appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal on the basis that the complaint failed to comply with the notice pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lak’s action because Lak failed to give each “defendant fair notice of what the ․ claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted, alteration in original); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaint does not comply with Rule 8 if “one cannot determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory”).

Defendant State of California’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.