Opinion
21-15376
02-22-2022
SHIKEB SADDOZAI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. J. CEBALLOS; KENT CLARK; DIRECTOR OF C.D.C.R., 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 Eastern District of California No. 1:20-cv-00358-NONE-JLT Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
California state prisoner Shikeb Saddozai appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action concerning the inmate grievance process. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Saddozai's action because Saddozai failed to file an amended complaint after being granted several extensions and being warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (factors to be considered in determining whether to dismiss an action for failure to comply with court orders).
We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir. 2009).
Saddozai's motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 5) is denied.
AFFIRMED.