K'Napp v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

Ninth Circuit

K'Napp v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation

599 F. App'x 791

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedApril 16, 2015

Docket14-16243

StatusUnpublished

Cited by24 cases

This text of 599 F. App'x 791 (K'Napp v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation) 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

K'Napp v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation, 599 F. App'x 791 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Eric Charles Rodney K’napp appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended complaint that comports *792 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing K’napp’s action because, after being warned of the possibility of dismissal, Knapp filed another complaint that was not in compliance with the district court’s order and Rule 8. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992) (setting forth factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, and explaining that, although dismissal is a harsh penalty, a district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (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).

We reject K’napp’s contentions that he was not required to comply with the magistrate judge’s orders, and that the district court judge and magistrate judge demonstrated bias and failed to consider his pro se status.

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) (per curiam).

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 **

California state prisoner Eric Charles Rodney K’napp appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal claims related to the conditions of his confinement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an order to file an amended complaint that comports *792 with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing K’napp’s action because, after being warned of the possibility of dismissal, Knapp filed another complaint that was not in compliance with the district court’s order and Rule 8. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir.1992) (setting forth factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, and explaining that, although dismissal is a harsh penalty, a district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed unless there is a “definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177 (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).

We reject K’napp’s contentions that he was not required to comply with the magistrate judge’s orders, and that the district court judge and magistrate judge demonstrated bias and failed to consider his pro se status.

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) (per curiam).

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)

599 F. App'x 791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/knapp-v-california-department-of-corrections-rehabilitation-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack