Summary
affirming a dismissal for failure to prosecute because the plaintiff was required, but failed, to file an amended complaint
Summary of this case from Rieken v. Timberland BankOpinion
21-55933
09-19-2022
BRINT EARL CLARK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. M. MARTINEZ, individual/official capacity; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Mark C. Scarsi, District Judge, Presiding No. 5:21-cv-00463-MCS-PD
Before: O'SCANNLAIN, RAWLINSON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Brint Earl Clark appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing for failure to prosecute his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of his Eighth Amendment rights. 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). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Clark's action, without prejudice, for failure to prosecute after Clark failed to file an amended complaint and failed to respond to an order to show cause. See id. at 640-42 (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute; a 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)).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).