SHAYKH MUHAMMAD AL SAUD V. RODNEY CARR, No. 20-17179 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 26 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SHAYKH MUHAMMAD ABDUL BIN TALAL AL SAUD, AKA Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khalid Bin Talal Alsaud, Plaintiff-Appellant, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-17179 D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00449-SPL-JFM 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

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.