Demos v. Riveland
This text of 988 F.2d 118 (Demos v. Riveland) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
John Robert DEMOS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Chase RIVELAND, Secretary of Corrections; Howard Jeffries,
Associate Superintendent; Marjorie Owens,
T.R.C.C. Mailroom Clerk; Janet Barbour,
Superintendents, T.R.C.C.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 92-35414.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 1, 1993.*
Decided March 10, 1993.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. CV-92-352-BJR(JLW); Barbara J. Rothstein, District Judge, Presiding.
W.D.Wash.
AFFIRMED.
Before TANG, KOZINSKI and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Demos' first and second amended complaints did not comply with the requirement of Rule 8, Fed.R.Civ.P., that the complaint contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." It was exceedingly difficult to discern Demos' allegations from his second amended complaint, and it was within the district court's discretion to dismiss the action without prejudice for failure to comply with the Federal Rules and prior court orders.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
988 F.2d 118, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 10864, 1993 WL 69150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/demos-v-riveland-ca9-1993.