SUSAN POLK V. JEFFERY BEARD, No. 14-56884 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSAN MAE POLK, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 14-56884 D.C. No. 5:13-cv-01211-BRO v. MEMORANDUM* JEFFREY A. BEARD; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. California state prisoner Susan Mae Polk appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d * 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). 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Polk’s action because, after the magistrate judge identified the deficiencies in her prior complaints and provided two opportunities to amend, Polk’s second amended complaint did not comply with the court’s order directing her to file a complaint in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). See id. (affirming dismissal under Rule 8 of plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments); see also Hearns v. San Bernardino Police Dep’t., 530 F.3d 1124, 1129 (9th Cir. 2008) (in deciding whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing under Rule 41(b), “we must necessarily consider the legal question of whether the district court correctly dismissed without prejudice the original complaint on Rule 8 grounds”). Contrary to Polk’s contentions, the magistrate judge considered each of the relevant factors, including the availability of less drastic sanctions, before recommending that the action be dismissed with prejudice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 14-56884 Polk’s motion to substitute appellee Beard is denied, because Polk sued Beard in his official and individual capacities. See Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2). AFFIRMED. 3 14-56884

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.