Unpublished Disposition, 851 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1988)Annotate this Case
Bryant R. BRITT, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.CALIFORNIA COUNCIL ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE; Robert H.Philibosian; John K. Van De Kamp; G. Albert Howerton, Jr.;James Rowland; Hursey Sanders, Charles Catt; John Catt;Bon Won Hon; Earnest Simpson; David Smart; EarnestWilliams; Lee A. Pruitt, Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 23, 1988.* Decided June 22, 1988.
Before CHOY, TANG, and O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judges.
Bryant R. Britt appeals pro se the district court orders (1) denying his motion to review the magistrate's final report de novo; and (2) dismissing his amended complaint for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
In his original complaint, Britt alleged that the members of the California Council on Criminal Justice were liable, in their individual and official capacities, for violations of the civil rights statutes and the first, fourth, fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution. The district court referred Britt's complaint to a magistrate.
The magistrate's initial report found that Britt's complaint was "vague, conclusory, and unintelligible" and that it failed to satisfy Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). The magistrate gave Britt two weeks to file either objections to the findings or an amended complaint. Britt responded by filing an amended complaint. However, the magistrate's final report found the amended complaint to be "no better than the original complaint" and stated that "no amount of amendments could result in an acceptable complaint." Accordingly, this report recommended that Britt's action be dismissed. The district judge adopted the magistrate's final report and dismissed the action.
Britt then moved for de novo review of the final report and for reversal of the dismissal order. He also moved for a preliminary injunction "to protect the rights of the plaintiff until the issues can be heard in court." The court denied both motions. Britt filed a timely appeal.
Britt contends that the district court erred by refusing to review the final report de novo. We disagree.
Here, we find that the district court committed no error because in fact it did conduct a de novo review. The district court reviewed Britt's pleadings and other papers before it adopted the magistrate's final report.
Britt contends that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing his amended complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a). We disagree.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2) requires a complaint to include "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." District courts may dismiss with prejudice a complaint that does not comply with Rule 8(a) (2). See Hutchinson v. United States, 677 F.2d 1322, 1327-28 (9th Cir. 1982); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir. 1981).
Britt's amended complaint was indeed vague, conclusory and unintelligible. For example, it includes an allegation that the defendants used electronic surveillance equipment to "overload his system where his blood pressure will raise, and his head will roar to prevent sleep." In finding that Britt's amended complaint failed to satisfy Rule 8(a), the district court did not abuse its discretion.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3