Peter Palmer v. Glenn Savona ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                             SEP 24 2012
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                      U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    PETER MICHAEL PALMER,                            No. 11-15486
    Plaintiff - Appellant,            D.C. No. 3:10-cv-08209-JAT
    v.
    MEMORANDUM *
    GLENN A. SAVONA; et al.,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 6, 2012 **
    Before:        B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
    Peter Michael Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s order
    dismissing his 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of
    process for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. We have
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik
    v. Bonzelet, 
    963 F.2d 1258
    , 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to comply with court
    orders); Henderson v. Duncan, 
    779 F.2d 1421
    , 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (failure to
    prosecute). We vacate and remand.
    The district court abused its discretion in dismissing the action where there
    was no prejudice to defendants, the public interest in expeditious resolution of
    litigation was not implicated because the case had commenced just over two
    months prior to the dismissal, and the case had not been unreasonably delayed. See
    Henderson, 
    779 F.2d at 1423
     (listing factors to guide the court’s decision whether
    to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
    We decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal, including
    Palmer’s challenge to the district court’s order directing service of process by the
    U.S. Marshal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 
    370 F.3d 915
    , 923 (9th Cir.
    2004) (noting general rule that courts of appeal will not consider arguments raised
    for the first time on appeal).
    Palmer shall bear his own costs on appeal.
    VACATED and REMANDED.
    2                                    11-15486
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-15486

Judges: Fletcher, Reinhardt, Tashima

Filed Date: 9/24/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024