Neal
Neal v. Ekstrom
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Richard Leland Neal appeals pro se the district court’s dismissal of his amended complaint for failure to comply with the court’s order to amend the complaint in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review for abuse of discretion, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
Neal failed to provide a short, clear, and concise statement of his claims, even after instructions from the district court. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Neal’s amended complaint with prejudice. See id. at 1178-79 (affirming dismissal with prejudice of prolix and confusing complaint that did not comply with rule 8(a)); Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins., 651 F.2d 671, 673-74 (9th Cir.1981) (affirming dismissal of second complaint that was “equally as verbose, confusing and conclusory as the initial complaint.”). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the entire complaint for violation of Rule 8 and the court’s orders, we do not address Neal’s other contentions regarding the dismissal. See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1180 .