AL SAUD v. CARR (2021)

MEMORANDUM **

Arizona state prisoner Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Bin Talal Al Saud 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 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 Al Saud's action because Al Saud failed to comply with Rule 8 despite prior warnings and instructions regarding the federal pleading requirements. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (Rule 8 requires the complaint “give the defendant fair notice of what the ․ claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (alteration in original, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (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”).

AFFIRMED.