22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T41f,MEMORANDUM Robert Stapleton appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging civil rights violations in connection with state criminal zoning convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for viola tion of Rule 8 because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support federal jurisdiction or any federal claim for relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (stating that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction and the claims for relief); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-79 (concluding that a court may dismiss an action for noncompliance with Rule 8 after considering less drastic alternatives). Stapleton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T451,

MEMORANDUM

Robert Stapleton appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his action alleging civil rights violations in connection with state criminal zoning convictions. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for an abuse of discretion. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action for viola tion of Rule 8 because the complaint failed to allege sufficient facts to support federal jurisdiction or any federal claim for relief. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) (stating that a complaint must contain a “short and plain statement” of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction and the claims for relief); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-79 (concluding that a court may dismiss an action for noncompliance with Rule 8 after considering less drastic alternatives).

Stapleton’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.