D. Dustin v. Captain Tyson

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 19 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
D. DUSTIN, No. 10-16158
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00380-LJO-GSA
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CAPTAIN TYSON; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 12, 2011 **
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
D. Dustin, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42 U.S.C. § 1983action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291
F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Dustin’s action
for failure to comply with a court order because Dustin failed to file an amended
complaint after the court had granted six extensions. See id. at 642-43 (discussing
factors that district courts must consider before dismissing for failure to comply
with a court order). Similarly, the district court did not abuse its discretion by
declining to provide Dustin with further copies of his original complaint after twice
providing him copies of his original complaint.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Dustin’s recusal
motion because the magistrate judge’s prior rulings in this and other cases did not
constitute grounds for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994) (“[J]udicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion.”); Kulas v. Flores, 255 F.3d 780, 783 (9th Cir. 2001) (setting
forth standard of review).
We do not consider matters not raised in the opening brief. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
Dustin’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-16158