Unpublished Disposition, 881 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 881 F.2d 1084 (9th Cir. 1989)

John J. SEMOES, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.John J. SEMOES, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.Arthur Leroy BREWER U.S. Postal Service, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 86-2975.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 1989.** Decided July 31, 1989.

C.A. Muecke and Earl H. Carroll, District Judges, Presiding.

Before BROWNING, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM* 

John J. Semoes, pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his complaints against the Merit System Protection Board (No. 86-2975) and Postmaster Brewer and the United States Post Office (No. 87-2221). Semoes appears to contend that the defendants caused him physical injury in an attempt to frustrate his right to retirement benefits. We affirm dismissal of both claims on the ground that Semoes failed to file understandable claims. Both complaints were unintelligible and failed to present a short and plain statement of Semoes' claims as is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (2). See Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 415 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1021 (1985). Moreover, it appears beyond doubt that Semoes can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief under either of his claims, and thus dismissal is required under Rule 12(b) (6). Finally, it is absolutely clear the deficiencies of both complaints could not be cured by amendment. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448 (9th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED.

 *

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

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.