MIGUEL RIVERA V. CHARLES RYAN, No. 21-15931 (9th Cir. 2021)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED OCT 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MIGUEL RIVERA, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-15931 Plaintiff-Appellant, v. D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05742-DWL-JFM MEMORANDUM* CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 12, 2021** Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Miguel Rivera appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action alleging various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of * 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). Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Rivera’s action because the fourth amended complaint failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaints that fail to comply with Rule 8 “impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges” who “cannot use [such] complaint[s]” and “must prepare outlines to determine who is being sued for what”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera’s motions for appointment of counsel because Rivera failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement). All pending motions are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-15931

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.