Gavin Davis v. John Unruh

Ninth Circuit

Gavin Davis v. John Unruh

677 F. App'x 456

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 22, 2017

Docket16-56306

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 677 F. App'x 456 (Gavin Davis v. John Unruh) 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.

Bluebook

Gavin Davis v. John Unruh, 677 F. App'x 456 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Gavin B. Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Davis’s action for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Despite the district court’s warning, Davis’s amended complaint consisted of *457 159 pages—58 pages more than the original complaint—as well as 172 pages of exhibits. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

Gavin B. Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in his action alleging federal and state law violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Davis’s action for failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Despite the district court’s warning, Davis’s amended complaint consisted of *457 159 pages—58 pages more than the original complaint—as well as 172 pages of exhibits. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of complaint that was “argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

677 F. App'x 456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gavin-davis-v-john-unruh-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack