Karboau v. Oregon Department of Corrections

Ninth Circuit

Karboau v. Oregon Department of Corrections

577 F. App'x 678

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 30, 2014

Docket13-35121

StatusUnpublished

This text of 577 F. App'x 678 (Karboau v. Oregon Department of Corrections) 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

Karboau v. Oregon Department of Corrections, 577 F. App'x 678 (9th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Former Oregon state prisoner Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among others, various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Karboau’s action because, despite an opportunity to amend and multiple extensions of time, Karboau failed to set forth “a short and plain statement” of his claims, and instead, alleged approximately 83 unrelated causes of action against more than 100 defendants for conduct occurring over more than six years of incarceration at various state correctional facilities. Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Former Oregon state prisoner Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among others, various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n. 5 (9th Cir.1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Karboau’s action because, despite an opportunity to amend and multiple extensions of time, Karboau failed to set forth “a short and plain statement” of his claims, and instead, alleged approximately 83 unrelated causes of action against more than 100 defendants for conduct occurring over more than six years of incarceration at various state correctional facilities. Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

577 F. App'x 678, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karboau-v-oregon-department-of-corrections-ca9-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack