Little v. State of Washington, 042313 FED9, 12-35297

Docket Nº:12-35297
Party Name:BRENDA J. LITTLE, an attorney on leave, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant, And WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, a state agency; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judge Panel:Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:April 23, 2013
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

BRENDA J. LITTLE, an attorney on leave, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

STATE OF WASHINGTON, Defendant,

And

WASHINGTON STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, a state agency; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 12-35297

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

April 23, 2013

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted April 16, 2013 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington James L. Robart, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. 2:11-cv-01387-JLR

Before: CANBY, IKUTA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Brenda J. Little, an attorney on leave, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various federal and state law claims in connection with proceedings to determine the status of her membership in the Washington State Bar Association. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Little's action because the First Amended Complaint did not comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (requiring pleading to contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief"); Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216 (9th Cir. 2011) (to be entitled to presumption of truth, a complaint's allegations may not simply recite elements of cause of action but must contain sufficient allegations of underlying facts to give fair notice and enable an effective defense; factual allegations taken as true must plausibly suggest "entitlement to relief, such that it is not unfair to require the opposing party to be subjected to the expense of discovery and continued litigation"); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 "is a basis for dismissal independent of Rule 12(b)(6)").

We...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP