From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parks v. Chambliss

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2010
399 F. App'x 208 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

No. 08-16215.

Submitted September 13, 2010.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed October 6, 2010.

L. Seville Parks, ELY, NV, pro se.

Kristen R. Geddes, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Carson City, NV, for Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Roger L. Hunt, Chief Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:06-cv-00602-RLH-LRL.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

L. Seville Parks, a Nevada state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to comply with a court order to amend his complaint. 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 Parks's action for failure to comply with a court order where the district court described the inadequacies of Parks's complaint and gave him ample time to amend, and Parks failed to pursue the case for over six months without providing any reason for the delay. See id., at 642-43.

Parks's remaining contentions are un-persuasive.

To the extent that there are any out-standing motions, they are denied.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Parks v. Chambliss

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2010
399 F. App'x 208 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

Parks v. Chambliss

Case Details

Full title:L. Seville PARKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert CHAMBLISS; et al.…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 6, 2010

Citations

399 F. App'x 208 (9th Cir. 2010)