MEMORANDUM **

Robert Chambers appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs while a pretrial detainee at Los Angeles County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A or 1915(e)(2). Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because the third amended complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 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’); McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 1996) (Rule 8 requires each averment of a pleading to be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong, and is a basis for dismissal independent of failure to state a claim).

Chambers’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Chambers’ request for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.