JANET HOWELL V. USA, No. 19-16037 (9th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED AUG 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JANET C. HOWELL, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 19-16037 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 1:17-cv-00514-ACK-RLP MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Alan C. Kay, District Judge, Presiding Submitted August 5, 2020** Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Janet C. Howell appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 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). * 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). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Howell’s action for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). Despite the district court’s warnings and instructions, Howell’s amended complaint was vague, confusing, and failed to contain a short and plain statement of the grounds for the district court’s jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (dismissal under Rule 8 was not an abuse of discretion where the complaint was “verbose, confusing and conclusory”). 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). All pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 19-16037

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.