Stephanie Taylor v. State of Washington ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                            NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       MAR 21 2023
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    STEPHANIE S. TAYLOR, for minor N.F; et No. 21-36030
    al.,
    D.C. No. 2:19-cv-01869-RAJ
    Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.                                             MEMORANDUM*
    STATE OF WASHINGTON
    DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE YOUTH
    AND FAMILY SERVICES, FAR and CPS
    Department; et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Washington
    Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted March 14, 2023**
    Before:      SILVERMAN, SUNG, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.
    Stephanie S. Taylor and Sandra Brown appeal pro se from the district court’s
    judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order their action alleging
    *
    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).
    various federal claims. We have jurisdiction under 
    28 U.S.C. § 1291
    . We review
    for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 
    291 F.3d 639
    , 640 (9th Cir.
    2002). We affirm.
    The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs’ action
    without prejudice after Taylor failed to comply with a court order to file an
    amended complaint, despite the district court’s warning that noncompliance may
    result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (a district court may dismiss an action
    “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”);
    Pagtalunan, 
    291 F.3d at 640-43
     (discussing factors to be considered before
    dismissing a case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order; a
    district court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm
    conviction” of “a clear error of judgment” (citations and internal quotation marks
    omitted)).
    We do not consider the district court’s interlocutory ruling on the
    Washington State defendants’ motion to dismiss. See Ash v. Cvetkov, 
    739 F.2d 493
    , 498 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that “interlocutory rulings do not merge into a
    judgement of dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute whether the
    failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake”).
    The district court properly granted summary judgment to the Olympia Police
    defendants because plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to
    2                                     21-36030
    whether these defendants violated any of their rights. See Johns v. County of San
    Diego, 
    114 F.3d 874
    , 876-77 (9th Cir. 1997) (explaining that a non-lawyer may not
    bring claims on behalf of others or, without a lawyer, bring suits on behalf of
    minors); Aldabe v. Aldabe, 
    616 F.2d 1089
    , 1092 (9th Cir. 1980) (holding that 
    18 U.S.C. §§ 241
    , 242 “provide no basis for civil liability”); see also Monell v. Dep’t
    of Soc. Servs., 
    436 U.S. 658
    , 694 (1978) (explaining that official capacity suits
    require showing a “policy or custom” violating constitutional rights).
    We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
    in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on
    appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 
    587 F.3d 983
    , 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
    Plaintiffs’ request to appoint counsel, set forth in the opening brief, is
    denied.
    AFFIRMED.
    3                                        21-36030