Zito v. State of Nevada

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 12 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORDAN CHRISTOPHER ZITO, State of No. 25-1837 Nevada, D.C. No. 3:25-cv-00024-MMD-

CLB

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MEMORANDUM*

STATE OF NEVADA; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, DIVISION OF WELFARE AND SUPPORTIVE SERVICES; MARK E. AMODEI; CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Senator; JACKY ROSEN, Senator, Department of Taxation; RALEYS SUPERMARKETS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Miranda M. Du, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2026**

Before: LEE, DESAI, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

*

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).

Jordan Christopher Zito appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging federal 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

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 Zito’s action because Zito failed to

provide in his complaint “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the

pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2); see also Pickern, 457 F.3d at

968 (explaining that “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) requires that the

allegations in the complaint give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s

claim is and the grounds upon which it rests” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)); 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).

We reject as unsupported by the record Zito’s contentions regarding judicial

misconduct and bias.

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-1837