Opinion
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. D.C. No. 3:11-cv-05110-RBL. Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding.
Andrew Strick, Plaintiff - Appellant, Pro se, Yelm, WA.
For Doug Pitts, Todd Saunders, CHRIS GLENN, Associate Superintendent, Shawn T Williams, Jason Porter, Randall J Tremain, Peter Hall, Kenneth Quinn, Carol Christopherson, Denise Hinrichsen, Tracy Grunenfelder, Camille Dexter, Steven T Ewing, Kyle Hallett, Tom S Gent, Bishop, Kimberly Metzger, Jean-Marie Darnell, Robert D. Morris, Brian K Lynch, Christine Gregoire, Eldon Vail, Kenneth Taylor, Prisoner Number: -: AB 7038, Richard Morgan, David M Thompson, Ronald Brevig, Timothy Leo, Shaun Van Eaton, Rodney Hopf, Melvin Correa, Unnamed Doc Employment, MATTHEW BOYES, Corrections and Custody Sergeant, LONNIE AUSTIN, Corrections and Custody Officer, Joseph Hall, LENTZ, Ph.D., Ecocol, ROBERT CARSRUD, Mental Health Director, Defendants - Appellees: Daniel John Judge, Senior Counsel, Agwa - Office of The Washington Attorney General (Olympia), Criminal Justice Division, Olympia, WA.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Former Washington state prisoner Andrew Strick appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his arrest and subsequent incarceration for violations of his community custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Strick's action without prejudice for failure to prosecute in light of Strick's failure to participate in the proceedings, including his failure to respond to defendants' proposed joint status report and the district court's order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing factors to guide the court's decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting dismissal will be disturbed only if there is " a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.