MEMORANDUM**

Hilton Lawrence Brown ("Brown"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his request for relief under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. We affirm the ruling of the district court.

Brown filed his Sec. 1983 complaint on September 19, 1986, naming as defendant the clerk of the federal district court in Los Angeles. Although the substance of Brown's complaint is far from clear, he appears to be claiming that the clerk failed to release or request production of some of Brown's military records which Brown believes relevant to some unspecified conflict of interest suffered by his state-appointed trial counsel. Brown filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915. While granting Brown's request to proceed in forma pauperis, the federal magistrate characterized Brown's allegations as "vague and conclusory" and dismissed the complaint. See F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). However, the magistrate also instructed Brown on how to cure his pleading deficiencies and gave him 30 days to amend his vague complaint.

Rather than amending his complaint, Brown instead filed a notice of appeal. In an order dated October 31, 1986, the magistrate noted that the court's prior order did not represent a final order and therefore was not yet subject to appellate review. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291. Accordingly, the magistrate disregarded the notice of appeal and granted Brown an additional 20 days in which to amend his complaint. Brown responded with a single-page document entitled "Amended Appeal." Treating this pleading as an amended complaint, the magistrate noted that this pleading, like Brown's original complaint, suffered from vagueness problems which made it impossible for the court to determine the nature of Brown's civil rights claims. The magistrate recommended that the district court dismiss the complaint as frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(d) (authorizing the dismissal of "frivolous" in forma pauperis actions). After de novo review, the district court adopted the magistrate's recommendations in full and ordered Brown's amended complaint dismissed as frivolous.

The district court's dismissal of the amended complaint was proper. We have defined a frivolous action under Sec. 1915(d) as "an action lacking arguable basis in law or in fact." Pratt v. Sumner, 807 F.2d 817, 819 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir.1984). The rambling nature of Brown's amended complaint makes it impossible to determine in what way Brown believes his legal rights have been violated. In addition, Brown's pleadings before this court do not make it entirely clear whose actions Brown wishes to challenge.1 Brown's amended complaint thus fails to present any arguable basis in law or fact for his civil rights claims. See Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 529-30 (9th Cir.1985).

While mindful that district courts have a responsibility to give pro se litigants notice of their pleading deficiencies as well as an opportunity to amend them, Hernandez v. Denton, Nos. 86-2139; 87-1693/1694, slip op. at 14457-58 (9th Cir. Nov. 23, 1988); Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623-24 (9th Cir.1988), the lower court adequately met this burden. On two occasions prior to a final dismissal of Brown's complaint, the court informed Brown of his pleading deficiencies, instructed him on how to correct these errors, and gave him additional time in which to amend his pleading. Thus, the district court did not err by dismissing the amended complaint as frivolous.

The ruling of the district court is therefore AFFIRMED.