ANNE PRAFADA V. MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, No. 18-17139 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FEB 6 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANNE PRAFADA, individually on her own behalf and as Guardians Ad Litem of M; on behalf of D.M., No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 18-17139 D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00718-DGC Plaintiff-Appellant, MEMORANDUM* v. MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee, and STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 4, 2020** Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges. * 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). Anne Prafada appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Prafada’s action because the second amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (dismissal under Rule 8 was proper where the complaint was “verbose, confusing and conclusory”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Prafada’s motion for a preliminary injunction because Prafada did not demonstrate that she was likely to succeed on the merits of her claims. See Short v. Brown, 893 F.3d 671, 675-76 (9th Cir. 2018) (stating standard of review and discussing requirements for granting a preliminary injunction). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). Prafada’s motion to resubmit her excerpts of record (Docket Entry No. 33) is 2 18-17139 granted. The Court has considered the excerpts Prafada submitted in conjunction with that motion. All other pending motions and requests are denied. AFFIRMED. 3 18-17139
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.
