NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GARY P. SMITH, No. 20-16591
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:19-cv-00651-DAD-EPG
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MUNICIPALITY OF FRESNO COUNTY;
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Gary P. Smith appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
determination of whether the complaint failed to comply with the notice pleading
*
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).
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports
(U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm in part, vacate in part,
and remand.
Although Smith’s operative fourth amended complaint contains substantial
portions that fail to connect an allegation with any particular defendant in violation
of Rules 8, 18, and 20, the complaint delineated with sufficient specificity and
detail a claim alleging that defendants Bishop and Brockway were deliberately
indifferent to Smith’s safety. See Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t, 530
F.3d 1124, 1132 (9th Cir. 2008) (remanding a Rule 8 dismissal after determining
that, although the complaint contained excessive detail, it was intelligible and
clearly delineated the claims and the relevant defendants, and noting that the
district court could strike the surplusage from the complaint); Wallis v. Baldwin, 70
F.3d 1074, 1076-77 (9th Cir. 1995) (setting forth standards for an Eighth
Amendment claim for harm suffered in prison). We vacate and remand for further
proceedings with regards to defendants Brockway and Bishop consistent with this
disposition.
To the extent Smith raises contentions in connection with his state habeas
petition and his underlying criminal conviction, we do not consider such
contentions because they are beyond the scope of this appeal.
2 20-16591
Smith’s motion for reconsideration (Docket Entry No. 14) and motion for
appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 24) are denied.
AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED.
3 20-16591