FILED
                             NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             DEC 08 2009

                                                                        MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS




                             FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT



 MARK CONRAD FAUROT, II,                          No. 08-17743

               Plaintiff - Appellant,             D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00254-MCE-
                                                  DAD
   v.

 C. A. TERHUNE; et al.,                           MEMORANDUM *

               Defendants - Appellees.



                    Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of California
                  Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted November 17, 2009 **

Before:        ALARCÓN, TROTT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

        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.

          *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
          **
            The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without
oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

tk/Research
§ 1291. We review de novo. Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 

, 1064

(9th Cir. 2004). We affirm.

        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, 

, 1179-80

(9th Cir. 1996) (affirming dismissal of plaintiff’s complaint because it failed to set

forth simple, concise and direct averments).

        Faurot’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

        AFFIRMED.




tk/Research                                2                                    08-17743