Delaney Smith, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DELANEY E. SMITH, JR., Pharma D No. 14-55189
MD,
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04996-PA-FMO
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Delaney E. Smith, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s January 3, 2014
order striking documents from the docket. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg.,
*
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).
Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in exercising its inherent power
to strike Smith’s filings from the docket because they were filed nearly thirteen
months after the district court closed the case, and the district court had previously
directed the district court clerk to reject any future filings that Smith made in the
case. See id. (explaining that federal district courts have the “inherent power to
control their docket” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
We lack jurisdiction to consider any of the district court’s prior rulings
because Smith failed to file a timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)
(a notice of appeal must be filed within 30 days after the date of entry of the
judgment).
We do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See
Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
All pending motions and requests are denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55189