NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 22 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CORNELIUS LOPES, No. 21-16476

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07758-CRB

v.

MEMORANDUM*

KEVIN DELEON; NANCY PELOSI;

GAVIN NEWSOM; MARIA ELENA

DURAZO; ELOISE GOMEZ REYES;

JOAQUIN CASTRO; JANET

NAPOLITANO; TONI ATKINS; ELENI

KOUNALAKIS; ROBERT HERTZBERG;

SHANNON GROVE; WILLIAM SCOTT;

CONNIE LEYVA; MIKE MCGUIRE; JIM

NIELSEN; ERIKA CONTRERAS;

KATRINA RODRIQUEZ; XAVIER

BECERRA; ALEX PADILLA, Secretary of State of California; BOD ARCHULETA;

LORI COX; ANISSA BASOCO-

VILLAREAL; CARL GUARDINO; BRIAN

BRENNAN; PATRICK YOES;

FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE;

PATRICK LYNCH; POLICE

BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION OF THE

CITY OF NEW YORK,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Charles R. Breyer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

Cornelius Lopes appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to comply with

the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1

Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Lopes’s action for failure to comply

with Rule 8(a) because Lopes’s operative complaint was vague, confusing, and

failed to allege clearly the bases for his claims. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)

(requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing

that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th

Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of a complaint under Rule 8 because it was

“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to

amend and striking Lopes’s proposed amended complaint because the proposed

amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8(a). See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

2 21-16476 Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2011) (explaining

that denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion where proposed

pleading failed to comply with Rule 8); Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627

F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010) (district court has inherent power to control its

docket, including power to strike items from the docket).

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 21-16476