Percy Anderson, Sr. v. County of San Diego ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PERCY ANDERSON, Sr., No. 13-56317
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00705-CAB-
MDD
v.
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants - Appellees.
PERCY ANDERSON, Sr., No. 13-56320
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-00043-CAB-
MDD
v.
HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
AGENCY, San Diego; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
PERCY ANDERSON, Sr., No. 13-56323
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
1 13-56317
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00572-CAB-
MDD
v.
DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Cathy Ann Bencivengo, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Percy Anderson, Sr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his actions alleging federal and state law
violations arising out of the removal of his children from his home. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the
district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute. Allen v. Calderon, 408 F.3d
1150, 1152 (9th Cir. 2005). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Anderson’s cases
without prejudice for failure to prosecute after Anderson failed to oppose
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
2 13-56317
dispositive motions, to appear at hearings, and to provide sufficient evidence
showing incompetence during litigation, despite having had multiple opportunities
to do so. See Krain v. Smallwood, 880 F.2d 1119, 1121 (9th Cir. 1989) (where a
“substantial question exists regarding the competence of an unrepresented party,”
“[t]he district court has discretion to dismiss the cases without prejudice”); Ash v.
Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496-97 (9th Cir. 1984) (setting forth factors for evaluating
dismissal for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.
3 13-56317