From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stuart v. F.B.I.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 17, 2003
76 F. App'x 129 (9th Cir. 2003)

Opinion

Submitted September 8, 2003.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 36-3)

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California; Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding.

Robert B. Stuart, Los Banos, CA, pro se.

No appearance, for Defendant-Appellee.


Before PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Robert B. Stuart appeals pro se the district court's judgment dismissing without prejudice his action alleging causes of action under the 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and various California statutes. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court's sua sponte dismissal, Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 986, 991 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Stuart's action because his amended complaint did not contain a "short and plain" statement of the claims for relief as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a). See Jones v. Cmty. Redev. Agency, 733 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir.1984). The district court properly denied leave to amend because, given the nature of Stuart's allegations, amendment would be futile. See id. at 650-51.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Stuart v. F.B.I.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Sep 17, 2003
76 F. App'x 129 (9th Cir. 2003)
Case details for

Stuart v. F.B.I.

Case Details

Full title:Robert B. STUART, Plaintiff--Appellant, v. The FEDERAL BUREAU OF…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Sep 17, 2003

Citations

76 F. App'x 129 (9th Cir. 2003)

Citing Cases

Woodrow v. Cnty. of Merced

Title 18 U.S.C. §242 does not authorize a litigant to bring claims in civil action for alleged violations of…

Robben v. Cal. Supreme Court

Id. (clerks entitled to quasi-judicial immunity where they refused to accept amended petition); Morrison v.…