JOHN PANZER V. HUD, No. 15-16993 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOHN ALFRED PANZER I, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 15-16993 D.C. No. 3:15-cv-04033-MEJ v. MEMORANDUM* U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding** Submitted July 11, 2017*** Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges. John Alfred Panzer I appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** Panzer consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). *** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an 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), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Panzer’s action for failure to comply with Rule 8, because the complaint does not contain “a short and plain statement of the claims showing that [Panzer] is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2), (d)(1); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1174 (affirming dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Panzer’s complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-16993

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.