Phillip Eugene Sanders v. V. LAI, Deputy District Attorney;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHILLIP EUGENE SANDERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
V. LAI, Deputy District Attorney; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-15074
D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00690-DAD-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 8, 2021**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.
Phillip Eugene Sanders appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his
action alleging constitutional violations stemming from his criminal proceedings.
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8.
* 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
NOV 19 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-15074
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Sanders’s action
because Sanders failed to comply with Rule 8 despite prior warnings and
instructions regarding the federal pleading requirements. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
8(a)(2) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . .”);
McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178 (complaint does not comply with Rule 8 if “one cannot
determine from the complaint who is being sued, for what relief, and on what
theory”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying further leave to
amend. See Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047,
1058 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth the standard of review and explaining that a
“district court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where [the]
plaintiff has previously amended the complaint” (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Contrary to Sanders’s contention, a magistrate judge may be authorized to
perform nondispositive actions without seeking the parties’ consent. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(A); E.D. Cal. R. 302(a).
We reject as without merit Sanders’s contention that the change in the
docketing initials in his case documents from “NONE” to “DAD” was improper.

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-15074
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --