Paula Idele Keller v. Washington Mutual Bank, F.a.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PAULA IDELE KELLER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A.; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 17-56202
D.C. No. 2:16-cv-09165-TJH-SK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Terry J. Hatter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, LEAVY and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Paula Idele Keller appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
Keller’s action alleging federal and state law claims arising out of foreclosure
proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
abuse of discretion a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. McHenry
* 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).
FILED
MAY 29 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56202
v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Keller’s action without prejudice
because the allegations in the complaint were vague, confusing, and failed to
connect Keller’s claims to defendants’ conduct. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)
(requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief”); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1179-80 (affirming
dismissal under Rule 8, and recognizing that “[p]rolix, confusing
complaints . . . impose unfair burdens on litigants and judges”).
Because Keller failed to allege a claim under the Truth in Lending Act in her
complaint, we reject as without merit her contention that the district court should
have granted her leave to amend this claim.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --