Allums v. City of Oakland

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: March 20, 2026
• Docket: 24-6837
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAR 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS ALLUMS, No. 24-6837 D.C. No. 3:24-cv-06272-TLT Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CITY OF OAKLAND,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Trina L. Thompson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 16, 2026**

Before: SILVERMAN, NGUYEN, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Dennis Allums appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112

(9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii)); Pickern v. Pier 1

* 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). Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (compliance with Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Allums’s action because his complaint

failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)

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

that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d

671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining that a complaint that is “verbose, confusing

and conclusory” violates Rule 8); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (explaining that, to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its

face” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend

because “it is clear that granting leave to amend would have been futile.” Lathus v.

City of Huntington Beach, 56 F.4th 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted);

Walker v. Beard, 789 F.3d 1125, 1139 (9th Cir. 2015) (setting forth standard of

review and explaining that denial of leave to amend is proper where no amendment

would cure the complaint’s deficiencies).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Allums’s motion (Docket Entry No. 5) for default judgment or summary

2 24-6837 disposition is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-6837