SHARIPOFF v. MYERS (2021)

MEMORANDUM ***

Isaacky Gavrilovich Sharipoff appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action against deputies at the Marion County Jail. 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 Sharipoff's action for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). Despite an opportunity to amend, Sharipoff's amended complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for relief. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1059 (9th Cir. 2011) (a complaint violates Rule 8 when it is “highly repetitious, or confused, or consist[s] of incomprehensible ramblings” (citation omitted)).

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.