MILAUDI KARBOAU V. ODOC, No. 13-35121 (9th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MILAUDI KARBOAU, No. 13-35121 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 6:11-cv-06312-JO v. MEMORANDUM* OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Robert E. Jones, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Former Oregon state prisoner Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among others, various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Karboau s action because, despite an opportunity to amend and multiple extensions of time, Karboau failed to set forth a short and plain statement of his claims, and instead, alleged approximately 83 unrelated causes of action against more than 100 defendants for conduct occurring over more than six years of incarceration at various state correctional facilities. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (a)(2); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong). AFFIRMED. 2 13-35121

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.