What is the test for dismissing a complaint with prejudice for failure to amend the complaint to comply with Rule 8?

Dismissal of a complaint with prejudice for failure to comply with a court order to amend the complaint to comply with Rule 8 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1177 (9th Cir.1996).

In deciding whether to dismiss a complaint, allegations of material fact are to be taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.1996). Landrath thus has arguably stated or may be able to state viable constitutional claims based on the following events: (1) his arrest at a neighborhood association meeting; (2) the alleged coercion of a pub owner to prevent Landrath from participating in a Hemp Awareness Weekend; and (3) his arrest for obstruction of a sidewalk. None of Landrath's other claims have merit. ¹

Dismissal with prejudice is "the most severe penalty and is authorized only in extreme circumstances." Dahl v. City of Huntington Beach, 84 F.3d 363, 367 (9th Cir.1996) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him or her to relief. See Lewis v. Telephone Employees Credit Union, 87 F.3d 1537, 1545 (9th Cir.1996); Smith v. Jackson, 84 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir.1996).