
    Milaudi KARBOAU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-35121.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 30, 2014.
    Milaudi Karboau, Portland, OR, pro se.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former Oregon state prisoner Milaudi Karboau appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging, among others, various constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir.1998) (order) (dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)); 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 Karboau’s action because, despite an opportunity to amend and multiple extensions of time, Karboau failed to set forth “a short and plain statement” of his claims, and instead, alleged approximately 83 unrelated causes of action against more than 100 defendants for conduct occurring over more than six years of incarceration at various state correctional facilities. Fed. R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2); see also McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996) (Rule 8 requires that each averment of a pleading be simple, concise, and direct, stating which defendant is liable to the plaintiff for which wrong).

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