Eugene Forte v. County of Merced

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 30 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EUGENE FORTE, No. 15-16368
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00318-AWI-
BAM
v.
COUNTY OF MERCED; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 24, 2017**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON,
Circuit Judges.
Eugene Forte appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims arising out of his arrests. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
*
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).
dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Forte’s action
with prejudice after Forte failed to comply with the district court’s order, despite
being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-
43 (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 the district court “committed a clear error of
judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Forte’s action for failure
to comply with a court order, we do not consider Forte’s challenges to the district
court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after a final judgment, are
not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to
prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and
internal question marks omitted)).
We reject as unsupported by the record Forte’s contentions that the district
judge should have disqualified himself, that the district judge did not consider
2 15-16368
Forte’s objections to the findings and recommendations, or that the district court
committed fraud.
McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., Los Banos Enterprise, Gene Lieb, and Corey
Pride’s request for sanctions, set forth in their answering brief, is denied.
Forte’s motions (Docket Entry Nos. 17, 31, 33, 107, and 133) are denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 15-16368