Summary
requiring provision's proponent "to show that there was a good faith attempt to set an amount reflective of anticipated damages at the time of the execution of the collective bargaining agreement"
Summary of this case from Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 625 v. Nitro Constr. Servs.Opinion
Editorial Note:
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA9 Rule 36-3 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided May 18, 1990.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding.
E.D.Cal.
AFFIRMED.
Before HUG, CYNTHIA HOLCOMB HALL and TROTT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
James O'Leary appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his action for failure to comply with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. O'Leary filed this action after his boat was impounded but before its eventual sale under California's unlawful detainer statute. In his complaint, he made vague allegations of violations of his constitutional rights and also may have alleged breach of a marine contract or a tort in an attempt to establish admiralty jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(1). We review the dismissal of the action for failure to comply with Rule 8 for an abuse of discretion. Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir.1981). We affirm.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Rule 8(e)(1) requires pleading averments to be "simple, concise, and direct." A district court may dismiss an action for a pro se party's failure to comply with Rule 8(a) and (e), provided that meaningful, less drastic alternatives have been explored. Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 673-74.
Here, the district court explored alternatives less drastic than dismissal bye instructing O'Leary on how to cure the deficiencies of his complaint. See id. After O'Leary filed his first complaint, the district court advised him that he needed to provide a statement setting forth the grounds for the court's jurisdiction, a short and plain statement of his claim, and a demand for whatever relief he was seeking. After O'Leary filed his first amended complaint, the district court advised him that he needed to explain how the acts of the named defendants entitled him to relief. Despite the district court's instructions, O'Leary's second amended complaint remains confusing: it refers to a maritime contract and cites various legal authority but does not state any facts describing the defendants' action. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing O'Leary's complaint.
The appellees contend that O'Leary's appeal is frivolous and that his brief on appeal fails to meet the requirements of Fed.R.App.P. 28(a) and 9th Cir.R. 28-2. Accordingly, they request attorney's fees in the amount of $2,000 and sanctions under Fed.R.App.P. 38.
This court has discretion to award damages and single or double costs, even against pro se litigants, as a sanction for bringing a frivolous appeal. Fed.R.App.P. 38; see Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008-09 (9th Cir.1988) (sanction imposed on pro se litigant). An appeal is frivolous when the result is obvious or the appellant's arguments of error are wholly without merit. Wilcox, 848 F.2d at 1009. Because O'Leary's appeal is frivolous, we award the defendants-appellees attorney's fees in the amount of $1,000. This court will entertain no petitions for rehearing. The mandate will issue forthwith.
AFFIRMED.