BRENDA JOHNSON V. USA, No. 21-35761 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 29 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRENDA M. JOHNSON, No. Plaintiff-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-35761 D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05242-MJP MEMORANDUM* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 15, 2022** Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Brenda M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 * 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). F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court’s determination of whether a complaint complies with the notice pleading requirements of Rule 8). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim or to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (a claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content allowing the reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged; conclusory allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The Federal Rules require that averments be simple, concise, and direct.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion for recusal because Johnson failed to establish any basis for disqualification. See United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth standard of review and circumstances requiring disqualification). Johnson’s motion for in forma pauperis status (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied as unnecessary. Johnson’s miscellaneous motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9 and 10) are denied. AFFIRMED. 2 21-35761
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.
