Miguel Rivera v. CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MIGUEL RIVERA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CHARLES L. RYAN, Director of ADOC; et
al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15931
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-05742-DWL-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Miguel Rivera appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. §1983 action alleging various constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a
dismissal for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of
* 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
OCT 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15931
Civil Procedure 8. Pickern v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th
Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Rivera’s action because the fourth
amended complaint failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 8(a), (d)(1); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d
1047, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 2011) (complaints that fail to comply with Rule 8 “impose
unfair burdens on litigants and judges” who “cannot use [such] complaint[s]” and
“must prepare outlines to determine who is being sued for what”); McHenry v.
Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (affirming dismissal of complaint that was
“argumentative, prolix, replete with redundancy, and largely irrelevant”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rivera’s motions
for appointment of counsel because Rivera failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Palmer v. Valdez, 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting
forth standard of review and “exceptional circumstances” requirement).
All pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --