Richard Evans v. Solano County Sheriff ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD A. EVANS, No. 20-15221
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-00020-KJM-EFB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
SOLANO COUNTY SHERIFF,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 18, 2021**
Before: CANBY, FRIEDLAND, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.
On February 18, 2020, this court referred this matter to the district court to
determine whether Evans’s in forma pauperis status should continue for this
appeal, and because there was no response from the district court within 21 days,
Evans’s in forma pauperis status continued on appeal. On January 21, 2021, the
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
district court revoked Evans’s in forma pauperis status. We reinstate Evans’s in
forma pauperis status for this appeal.
California state prisoner Richard A. Evans appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging conditions-of-
confinement and other constitutional claims that arose while he was a pretrial
detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse
of discretion a district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with court orders.
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Evans’s action
because Evans failed to comply with the district court’s orders to file an amended
complaint that named individual defendants and alleged a related set of claims.
See id. at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro se action
should be dismissed for failure to comply with district court orders and requiring
“a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of
judgment” in order to overturn such a dismissal (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted)); see also Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002)
(liability under § 1983 requires showing of personal participation in the alleged
rights deprivation).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
appeal, or documents and facts not presented to the district court. See Padgett v.
2 20-15221
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Elias, 921 F.2d
870, 874 (9th Cir. 1990).
Evans’s motion for stay (Docket Entry No. 10) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 20-15221