Unpublished Disposition, 899 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1990)Annotate this Case
Jozsef GYORE, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.William C. JARVIS, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted March 5, 1990.Decided March 29, 1990.
Before HUG, SCHROEDER and CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL, Circuit Judges.
Jozsef Gyore appeals pro se the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Gyore contends that the second amended complaint adequately stated claims for fraud, antitrust, securities, and civil RICO violations. He further contends that even if the complaint was defective, the district court failed to meet its obligation to guide him, as a pro se plaintiff, in correcting the defects. The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Despite repeated opportunities to amend his complaint, Gyore failed to make a short and plain statement of any claim to support federal jurisdiction. As the district court informed him, the allegations were conclusory and therefore insufficient under 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). Gyore also persisted in his failure to allege fraud with particularity, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). See Sun Sav. and Loan Ass'n v. Dierdorff, 825 F.2d 187, 196 (9th Cir. 1987). The district did more than was necessary to inform the plaintiff of the deficiencies of his complaint; the court is not required to act as the pro se plaintiff's advocate. Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1448-49 (9th Cir. 1987).
Although the appeal lacks merit, it is not frivolous or brought in bad faith. Thus sanctions are not appropriate. See Fed. R. App. P. 38; Morris v. Tehama County, 795 F.2d 791, 795 (9th Cir. 1986).
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3