MEMORANDUM **

Jonathan Cataldo Bertanelli, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1988 action alleging that defendants violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Dominguez v. Miller (In re Dominguez), 51 F.3d 1502, 1508 n. 5 (9th Cir. 1995) (dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Bertanelli’s action because the operative First Amended Complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1996) (under Fed. R.Civ.P. 8, a complaint must set forth simple, concise, and direct averments indicating “which defendants are liable to plaintiffs for which wrongs”); see also Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 840-41 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(b) requirements).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Bertanelli’s motion for reconsideration because Bertanelli failed to establish a basis for such relief. See D. Ariz. Loe. R. 7.2(g)(1) (setting forth grounds for reconsideration); Hinton v. Pac. Enters., 5 F.3d 391, 395 (9th Cir. 1993) (reviewing application of local rules for an abuse of discretion); see also Sch. Dist. No. U, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)).

Bertanelli’s contentions that the court failed to construe liberally his First Amended Complaint, and that he stated a conspiracy claim, are not supported by the record.

AFFIRMED.