Geoffrey Wilson v. Tannaz Azinkhan ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GEOFFREY FITZGERALD WILSON, No. 18-55243
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08092-JVS-JC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TANNAZ H. AZINKHAN, Ph.D.;
SHARPER FUTURE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 12, 2018**
Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Geoffrey Fitzgerald Wilson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from
a group therapy session, which was a condition of Wilson’s parole. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.
*
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).
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to
comply with a court order); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.
1996) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wilson’s action
after Wilson failed to comply with court orders or meet deadlines, despite being
warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at
1384-85 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to
prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although
dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed
absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a clear error of
judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Wilson’s action for
failure to prosecute, we do not consider his challenge to the district court’s order
dismissing his First Amended Complaint. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386(“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not
appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to
prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 18-55243