From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Azinkhan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 18, 2018
No. 18-55243 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2018)

Opinion

No. 18-55243

09-18-2018

GEOFFREY FITZGERALD WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TANNAZ H. AZINKHAN, Ph.D.; SHARPER FUTURE, Defendants-Appellees.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

D.C. No. 2:16-cv-08092-JVS-JC MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding Before: LEAVY, HAWKINS, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Geoffrey Fitzgerald Wilson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from a group therapy session, which was a condition of Wilson's parole. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order); Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996) (dismissal for failure to prosecute). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Wilson's action after Wilson failed to comply with court orders or meet deadlines, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1384-85 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court's dismissal should not be disturbed absent "a definite and firm conviction" that it "committed a clear error of judgment" (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Because we affirm the district court's dismissal of Wilson's action for failure to prosecute, we do not consider his challenge to the district court's order dismissing his First Amended Complaint. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 ("[I]nterlocutory orders, generally appealable after 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 quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Azinkhan

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Sep 18, 2018
No. 18-55243 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2018)
Case details for

Wilson v. Azinkhan

Case Details

Full title:GEOFFREY FITZGERALD WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TANNAZ H. AZINKHAN…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Sep 18, 2018

Citations

No. 18-55243 (9th Cir. Sep. 18, 2018)