SHAYKH MUHAMMAD ABDUL BIN TALAL AL SAUD, AKA Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khalid Bin… v. Rodney Carr;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SHAYKH MUHAMMAD ABDUL BIN
TALAL AL SAUD, AKA Shaykh
Muhammad Abdul Aziz Khalid Bin Talal
Alsaud,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
RODNEY CARR; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 20-17179
D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00449-SPL-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Steven Paul Logan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Shaykh Muhammad Abdul Bin Talal Al Saud appeals
pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his action alleging federal and
state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an
* 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
JUL 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 20-17179
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). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Al Saud’s action
because Al Saud failed to comply with Rule 8 despite prior warnings and
instructions regarding the federal pleading requirements. See Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (Rule 8 requires the complaint “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests”
(alteration in original, citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); 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”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --