985, 124 S.Ct. 486, 157 L.Ed.2d 377 (2003). Plaintiffs remaining claims fail to state a “colorable constitutional claim of due process violation that implieate[s] a due process right [either] to a meaningful opportunity to be heard or to seek reconsideration of an adverse benefits determination.” Evans v. Chater, 110 F.3d 1480, 1483 (9th Cir.1997) (alteration in original) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted) (describing an exception to the exhaustion requirement for colorable due process claims). Moreover, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint with prejudice, after giving Plaintiff two prior opportunities to focus and clarify his complaint. Cf. McHenry v. Renne, 84 F.3d 1172, 1180 (9th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. *** This disposition is not
holding district court did not abuse its discretion in not granting plaintiffs leave to amend complaint for a third time holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the plaintiffs third amended complaint with prejudice for failure to abide by rule 8 which requires that each averment of a pleading be simple concise and direct holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing a complaint with prejudice based on the plaintiffs failure to amend the complaint by the deadline imposed by the court holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing an indictment with prejudice where the prosecutor showed reckless disregard for the prosecutions constitutional obligations