Shaykh Muhammad Al Saud v. Rodney Carr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAYKH MUHAMMAD ABDUL BIN No. 20-17179 TALAL AL SAUD, AKA Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khalid Bin Talal D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00449-SPL-JFM Alsaud, Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. RODNEY CARR; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 19, 2021** Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. 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 * 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). 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 (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. 2 20-17179