Case ID: f-appx_308/html/0178-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Earl WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. K. CORRECTIONAL SERGEANT; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 07-16979.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 17, 2008.
    
    Filed Jan. 14, 2009.
    David Earl Walker, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Vickie P. Whitney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

David Earl Walker appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as a sanction for violating the court’s protective order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action, with prejudice, after weighing the pertinent factors and evaluating alternatives to dismissal. See id. at 1260-63 (addressing factors to consider in determining whether a district court abused its discretion by dismissing a pro se action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).

Walker’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

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