FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 18 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DEREK SALAZAR, individually, No. 12-56545
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 8:11-cv-01125-AG-MLG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF ORANGE, a Governmental
Entity; SANDRA HUTCHENS,
individually; B. MURRAY, Deputy,
individually; A. KIRK, Deputy,
individually; D. LEATHERS, Deputy,
individually; M. SALGADO, Deputy,
individually; C. LAMBERTA, Deputy,
individually,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 7, 2014
Pasadena, California
Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Plaintiff Derek Salazar appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Third
Amended Complaint and denying leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). On appeal, however, Plaintiff only challenges the denial
of leave to amend. Because the parties are familiar with the factual background
and procedural history of this case, we need not discuss them here. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
“Denial of leave to amend is reviewed for abuse of discretion . . . . [T]he
district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where
plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” Metzler Inv. GMBH v.
Corinthian Colls., Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (internal citations and
quotations omitted).
A complaint need only include “a short and plain statement of the claim
showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint
should “fully set[] forth who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory,
with enough detail to guide discovery. It can be read in seconds and answered in
minutes.” McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Hearns
v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530 F.3d 1124, 1130 (9th Cir. 2008) (a complaint
must “set forth . . . which causes of action are alleged against which [d]efendants”).
As the district court correctly held, a fatal flaw in Plaintiff’s Third Amended
Complaint was that it “impermissibly lump[ed] together claims and defendants.”
This left “Defendants guessing [which] claim [wa]s brought against them.”
Before affirming a district court’s dismissal with prejudice, “we look to see
whether the district court might have adopted less drastic alternatives.” McHenry,
84 F.3d at 1178 (citation omitted). “[P]ermitting plaintiffs to replead twice” is a
less drastic alternative. Id.
Here, the district court permitted Plaintiff to replead twice. As the district
court noted, it “spent a substantial amount of time drafting [its orders], taking care
to inform Plaintiff of the [complaints’] deficiencies so that he could properly
amend. That effort was wasted.” In light of all the circumstances surrounding the
filing of the Third Amended Complaint, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the compliant without leave to amend.
AFFIRMED.