MEMORANDUM **

Mark Conrad Faurot, II, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants violated his civil rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064 (9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

*138 The district court properly dismissed the action without prejudice because the prolix allegations in Faurot’s 516-page complaint did not comply with Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief’); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1179-80 (9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of plaintiffs complaint because it failed to set forth simple, concise and direct averments).

Faurof s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.