Marceaux v. County of Maricopa

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 3 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CAMMIE L. MARCEAUX, No. 25-1977 D.C. No. 2:24-cv-01107-MTL Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MEMORANDUM* COUNTY OF MARICOPA; STATE OF ARIZONA, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Michael T. Liburdi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted July 29, 2026** Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR, Circuit Judges.

Cammie L. Marceaux appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims related to real property in Arizona. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (order). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Marceaux’s action because, despite an opportunity to amend, the amended complaint failed to comply with Rule 8. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2) (a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9th Cir. 1981) (explaining that a complaint that is “verbose, confusing and conclusory” violates Rule 8).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing without leave to amend because amendment would be futile. See Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1041 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth standard of review and explaining that dismissal without leave to amend is proper when amendment would be futile).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 25-1977