Lee v. Los Angeles Unified School District

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 29 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
RICHARD E. LEE, No. 12-55892
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-03067-AHM-
AGR
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL MEMORANDUM*
DISTRICT; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
A. Howard Matz, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 13, 2014**
Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Richard E. Lee appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his employment action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen,
*
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).
78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Lee’s action with
prejudice for failure to prosecute in light of Lee’s failure to file pretrial documents
and appear at the pretrial conference, even after the court previously granted Lee
three continuances and warned him that his action would be dismissed with
prejudice if he was not ready to go to trial. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing factors
to guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we
do not consider Lee’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See id.
at 1386 (“[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not
appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]”).
AFFIRMED.
2 12-55892