John Alfred Panzer I v. U.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN ALFRED PANZER I,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16993
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-04033-MEJ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Maria-Elena James, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted July 11, 2017***
Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.
John Alfred Panzer I appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** Panzer consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).
*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JUL 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-16993
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172,
1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Panzer’s action
for failure to comply with Rule 8, because the complaint does not contain “a short
and plain statement of the claims showing that [Panzer] is entitled to relief.” Fed.
R. Civ. Pro. 8(a)(2), (d)(1); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1174 (affirming dismissal under
Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing complaints . . . impose unfair
burdens on litigants and judges”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Panzer’s
complaint without leave to amend because further amendment would be futile. See
Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011)
(setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to
amend is proper when amendment would be futile).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --