Anthony Smith v. Parole Board ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 20 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY X. SMITH, No. 20-17474
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02454-TLN-DB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAROLE BOARD, at High Desert State
Prison; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 12, 2021**
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Anthony X. Smith appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,
*
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).
1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Smith’s action
because Smith failed to comply with the district court’s order to file a second
amended complaint despite a warning that failure to do so would result in
dismissal. See id. at 1260-63 (setting forth factors for determining whether a pro
se action should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(b) 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)).
Smith’s motion to certify questions to the Supreme Court (Docket Entry No.
5) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-17474