NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 7 2024

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JEAN MARC VAN DEN HEUVEL, No. 23-15976

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00249-DJC-JDP v.

WALMART SUPERCENTER; KAREN MEMORANDUM*

ROBERTS, Walmart counsel,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Daniel J. Calabretta, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 5, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: GOULD, SUNG, and DE ALBA, 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). Jean Marc Van den Heuvel appeals pro se the district court’s order

dismissing his complaint for failing to comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we

affirm.

1. Rule 8(a)(2) requires “a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .” We review de novo a district

court’s determination whether the plaintiff’s complaint complied with the

requirements of Rule 8. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968

(9th Cir. 2006).

2. The district court properly dismissed the action because Van den

Heuvel failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for relief. Van den

Heuvel’s operative complaint and brief on appeal predominantly contain general

grievances unrelated to the defendants named in this action. See McHenry v.

Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal

under Rule 8 where allegations were “argumentative, prolix, replete with

redundancy, and largely irrelevant”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d

671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (affirming dismissal under Rule 8 where allegations were

“verbose, confusing and conclusory”). Although difficult to decipher, Van den

Heuvel appears to allege he was arrested for trespass at Defendant-Appellee

Walmart Supercenter’s parking lot. However, Van den Heuvel pleads no facts

2 suggesting the arrest was unlawful or that the defendants otherwise violated his

civil rights. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (holding that Rule

8(a) requires “more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me

accusation,” or “‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement’”

(quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007))); Twombly,

550 U.S. at 545 (“Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above

the speculative level . . . .”).

3. The district court also did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the

complaint with prejudice. Despite an opportunity to amend, Van den Heuvel failed

to cure his complaint. See AE ex rel. Hernandez v. County of Tulare, 666 F.3d

631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012).

AFFIRMED.

3