Opinion
21-55728
10-18-2022
R. J. KULICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATRICK SOON-SHIONG; MICHELE B. CHAN; JEFF GLASSER; LOS ANGELES TIMES; DOES, 1-100, inclusive, Defendants-Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Submitted October 12, 2022.[**]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 2:21-cv-02471-SB-PVC, Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding.
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM [*]
R.J. Kulick appeals pro se from the district court's order without prejudice dismissing for lack of prosecution his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Lal v. California, 610 F.3d 518, 523 (9th Cir. 2010). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Kulick's action because Kulick failed to comply with a court order to show cause regarding service, despite the district court's warning that failure to serve the complaint would result in dismissal for failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district court may dismiss an action "[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order"); Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (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)); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 414.10 ("A summons may be served by any person . . . not a party to the action.").
AFFIRMED.
[*] This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not pr except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[**] The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).