NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 5 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL KRISTOF LAK, Esquire, No. 18-56613
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 8:18-cv-00160-PSG-KK
v.
MEMORANDUM*
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 2, 2020**
Before: LEAVY, PAEZ, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
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
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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 (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.
2 18-56613