Charlie Orea v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 19-56529

Plaintiffs-appellants Charlie and Brenda Orea (pro se) sued multiple defendants over a mortgage foreclosure and subsequent sale of their home.
They filed a second amended complaint exceeding 90 pages of text plus ~540 pages of exhibits.
The district court dismissed that complaint with prejudice for violating Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), finding it excessively long, rambling, confusing, and disorganized.
The district court had previously granted leave to amend, gave guidance on pleading defects, and the Oreas failed to correct those defects.
The court concluded further amendment would be futile and that it had no obligation to draft the complaint for the pro se plaintiffs.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed, declining to consider new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the complaint violated Rule 8(a)	Complaint states numerous claims from foreclosure and sale	Complaint is so disorganized it fails Rule 8(a)	Court: violated Rule 8(a); dismissal proper
Whether dismissal should be with prejudice	Opposed; sought opportunity to proceed	Prior amendment and guidance given; further amendment futile	Court: dismissal with prejudice not an abuse of discretion
Court's duty to assist pro se litigants	Pro se status entitles plaintiffs to extra help	Court need not rewrite or craft pleadings for pro se parties	Court: district adequately accounted for pro se status; no further duty
Whether further leave to amend was required	Requested more chance to fix defects	Plaintiffs repeatedly failed to cure defects; amendment would be futile	Court: denial of further leave reasonable and not abuse of discretion
Consideration of new arguments on appeal	Argued district should have parsed 29 claims and other errors	Issues raised for first time on appeal are forfeited	Court: declined to consider new appellate arguments

Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671 (9th Cir. 1981) (Rule 8 dismissal authority; leave to amend considerations)
McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaints must be concise and intelligible under Rule 8)
United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (standards for reviewing dismissals)
United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen. Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2011) (futility of amendment; affirming dismissal with prejudice)
Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) (pro se plaintiffs must follow procedural rules; courts need not supply missing facts)
Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2007) (limits on court's duty to assist pro se litigants)
Byrd v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 629 F.3d 1135 (9th Cir. 2011) (further discussion of pro se treatment and pleading standards)
Von Poppenheim v. Portland Boxing & Wrestling Comm’n, 442 F.2d 1047 (9th Cir. 1971) (case suitable for decision without oral argument)
Crawford v. Lungren, 96 F.3d 380 (9th Cir. 1996) (issues raised first on appeal may be forfeited)
Smith v. Marsh, 194 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 1999) (standards for appellate consideration of untimely arguments)