NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 31 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANDREW KWASI DONKOR, No. 16-55889
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 5:14-cv-02539-GW-DTB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
George H. Wu, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Andrew Kwasi Donkor appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate
indifference to his serious medical needs and due process violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213
*
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).
F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Dominguez v.
Miller, 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8).
We affirm.
In his opening brief, Donkor failed to challenge any of the district court’s
grounds for dismissal of the operative complaint, and therefore Donkor waived any
such challenge. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th
Cir. 2003) (“[W]e will not consider any claims that were not actually argued in
appellant’s opening brief.”); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999)
(“[A]rguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).
Even if Donkor had not waived this challenge, the district court properly
dismissed Donkor’s action because the allegations in his third amended complaint
were prolix, difficult to decipher, and failed to indicate how the named defendants
violated Donkor’s constitutional rights. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (stating that
complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir.
1996) (Rule 8 is an independent ground for dismissal and requires each averment
of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct in stating which defendant is liable
to the plaintiff for which wrong).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-55889