John Shek v. Children Hospital Research Cen , 592 F. App'x 570 ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 30 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHN SHEK, No. 13-17032
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:13-cv-02017-WHA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHILDREN HOSPITAL RESEARCH
CENTER IN OAKLAND; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2015**
Before: CANBY, GOULD, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
John Shek appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his
employment action alleging various federal and state law claims. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district
*
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).
court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, In re
Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prod. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.
2006), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Shek’s action for
failing to comply with its July 10, 2013 order because at least three of the five
relevant factors weighed in favor of dismissal. See id. (discussing the five factors
for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order, and
noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction
that it was clearly outside the acceptable range of sanctions” (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted)). Because we affirm on this basis, we do not address the
parties’ contentions concerning alternative grounds for dismissal.
We reject Shek’s contentions concerning judicial bias.
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009)
(per curiam).
Shek’s pending motions and requests for judicial notice are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 13-17032