Brenda M. Johnson v. United States of America;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA M. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 21-35761
D.C. No. 3:21-cv-05242-MJP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Marsha J. Pechman, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Brenda M. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her action for failure to comply with the pleading requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and failure to state a claim. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Watison v. Carter, 668
* 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
JUN 29 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-35761
F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)); Pickern v.
Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 457 F.3d 963, 968 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court’s
determination of whether a complaint complies with the notice pleading
requirements of Rule 8). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Johnson’s action because Johnson
failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim or to comply with the
requirements of Rule 8. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (a
claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content allowing the
reasonable inference that defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged; conclusory
allegations are not entitled to a presumption of truth); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d
1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996) (“The Federal Rules require that averments be simple,
concise, and direct.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Johnson’s motion
for recusal because Johnson failed to establish any basis for disqualification. See
United States v. McTiernan, 695 F.3d 882, 891-92 (9th Cir. 2012) (setting forth
standard of review and circumstances requiring disqualification).
Johnson’s motion for in forma pauperis status (Docket Entry No. 5) is
denied as unnecessary. Johnson’s miscellaneous motions (Docket Entry Nos. 9
and 10) are denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --