Narrative Opinion Summary
Wayne Nelson Cunday appeals the district court's dismissal of his amended complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the dismissal for abuse of discretion. The district court found that Cunday's amended complaint, which consists of a single sentence alleging violations of constitutional rights as "arbitrary and/or capricious," did not sufficiently state a claim. The appeal is affirmed, and the decision is noted as not appropriate for publication, with no precedential value except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appellate Review for Abuse of Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reviews the district court's dismissal of the complaint for an abuse of discretion, affirming the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: The appellate court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291 and reviews the dismissal for abuse of discretion.
Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court dismissed the plaintiff's amended complaint for failing to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 8(a), which necessitates a clear and concise statement of the claim showing entitlement to relief.
Reasoning: The district court found that Cunday's amended complaint, which consists of a single sentence alleging violations of constitutional rights as 'arbitrary and/or capricious,' did not sufficiently state a claim.
Non-Precedential Decisions under 9th Cir. R. 36-3subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court's decision is classified as non-precedential, meaning it is not intended for publication and is only relevant as specified by the court's rules.
Reasoning: The appeal is affirmed, and the decision is noted as not appropriate for publication, with no precedential value except as outlined by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.