
    John COBB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. REYES; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-56646.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 17, 2012.
    
    Filed Jan. 25, 2012.
    John Cobb, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    John Paul Cogger, Esquire, Alfred De La Cruz, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramierz, Trester LLP, Brian D. Murphy, Esquire, San Diego City Attorney’s Office, Stephanie Eileen Kish, Esquire, Office of the County Counsel, San Diego, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: LEAVY, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

John Cobb appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various state and federal claims against police officers, prosecutors, public defenders, and judges. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with an order to amend the complaint, McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Cobb’s action with prejudice after he failed to comply with the court’s order to amend his second amended complaint so as to plainly and clearly allege claims arising from his alleged wrongful arrest, prosecution, and conviction over a period of three decades. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) (to state a claim for relief, pleading must contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief); McHenry, 84 F.3d at 1178-79 (court may dismiss an action for noncompliance with Rule 8 after considering less drastic alternatives if it cannot determine who is being sued, for what relief, and on what theory); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-63 (9th Cir.1992) (setting forth factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with order to amend).

Cobb’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     