Free Mandate of 9th Circuit - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ‘ ·
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STEPHEN BISHOP, I No. 05-16416 .
· D.C. No. CV-04-00353-SMM
Plaintiff- Appellant,
JUDGMENT
DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al., _
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
(Phoenix).
This cause came on to be heard on the Transcript of the Record from the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix) and was duly V
submitted.
On consideration whereof, it is now here ordered and adjudged by this
Court, that the judgment of the said District Court in this cause be, and hereby is
AFFIRMED. -. . I ,
Filed and entered 03/16/07
P "/{Tf€Gfi%"T*E`;}l?~~.? "
c/>tia».-» A. eAwt»~¤»—·
Cleyk W " Fu *'*
i V/Url l`»—Y?"’
Q we 11 me ;e~
D uty Clerk
Case 2:O4—cv-OO353—SI\AI\A—-JFlI 30"""FT /O1/2007 Page 1 of 3

777 '''' rrwrrr 7 W ' ` T H ` T i
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 16 2007
` UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS __ CATH; ;>5é:&?1;r(r§Ir3}s'pPr¥;Ac_1§ERK
‘ FOR THE NINT H CIRCUIT *5 J
STEPHEN BISHOP, No. 05-16416 J
Plaintiff- Appellant, A D.C. No. CV—O4—O0353-SMM I
v. _
MEMoRANDUM*
DORA B. SCHRIRO, Director; et al.,
Defendants — Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Corut
for the District of Arizona
Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2007"
Before: KOZINSKI, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
. Arizona state prisoner Stephen Bishop appeals pro se from the district
cou1t’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
retaliation and violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. We 4
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not
precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. 4
" The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Case 2:04-cv-OOC353—SI\AI\A—-JFII Document 30 Filed 10/O1/2007 Page 2 of 3

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion,
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not err in dismissing Bishop’s action without j l
prejudice because his Amended Complaint, like its predecessor, did not contain a .
"short and p1ain" statement of his claims for relief as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.
See McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1177-78.
Bishop’s remaining contentions lack merit. 9 · 9 3 ~ · r
AFFIRMED.
·\FGT2`C¤{ .i`i” is , vilii l
Cpiritx IA`; _; w~~ ·r
Clerk ¤
AT‘?`F·?`
* .
ei g w i
2 I _,
it ¤»~ ai·14 i
W ;1.‘?i? . . mi
Case 2:04-cv-OO353—SI\/II\/I--JRI Document 30 Filed {O/O1/2007 Page 3 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00353-SMM--JRI

Document 30

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00353-SMM--JRI

Document 30

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 2:04-cv-00353-SMM--JRI

Document 30

Filed 10/01/2007

Page 3 of 3