Opinion
No. 09-15566.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 1, 2010.
Kerry D. Fritz, II, Sherman Oaks, CA, pro se.
Andrew C. Thomson, Kern County Counsel's Office, Bakersfield, CA, William A. Krabbenhoft, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, Jeffrey R. Vincent, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, Peter Charles Labrador, Peter C. Labrador, Esq., San Mateo, CA, Brian Evan Leach, Leach, McGreevy Labrador, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00377-OWW-DLB.
Before: SCHROEDER, PREGERSON, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Kerry D. Fritz, II, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with the court's orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after Fritz filed a third amended complaint that failed to conform with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, where the district court specifically warned Fritz multiple times that failure to comply with Rule 8 would result in dismissal of his action, and properly weighed the pertinent factors for dismissal. See id. at 1260-61 (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order).
Fritz's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.