Case ID: f-appx_691/html/0473-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Eugene FORTE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF MERCED; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-16368
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2017 
    
    Filed May 30, 2017
    Eugene Forte, Pro Se
    Brande L. Gustafson, Weakley & Arendt LLP, Fresno, CA, Roger S. Matzkind, Esquire, James Ethan Stone, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, Merced County Counsel, Merced, CA, for Defendants-Appellees County of Merced, Mark Pazin, Jerry O’Banion, James Fincher, Larry Morse, Alan Turner
    Brande L. Gustafson, James D. Weak-ley, Esquire, Attorney, Weakley & Arendt LLP, Fresno, CA, for Defendant-Appellee John Picinich
    Brande L. Gustafson, James D. Weak-ley, Esquire, Attorney, Weakley & Arendt LLP, Fresno, CA, Roger S. Matzkind, Esquire, James Ethan Stone, Esquire, Deputy County Counsel, Merced County Counsel, Merced, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Jaskowiac, Hill, Leuchner
    Rayma Church, Esquire, Attorney, James Douglas Emerson, Esquire, Attorney, Ryan D. Libke, Esquire, Attorney, Emerson, Corey, Sorensen, Church & Lib-ke, Fresno, CA, for Defendants-Appellees City of Los Banos, Gary Brizzee, Anthony Parker
    Peter Anthony Meshot,. Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant-Appellee James Padrón
    Peter Oscar Glaessner, Allen Glaessner Hazelwood & Werth, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees Catholic Diocese of Fresno, Connie McGhee
    Karl Olson, Esquire, Attorney, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees McClatchy Newspapers, Los Banos Enterprise, Gene Lieb, Corey Pride
    Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and SILVERMAN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Eugene Forte appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal claims arising out of his arrests. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Forte’s action with prejudice after Forte failed to comply with the district court’s order, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of Forte’s action for failure to comply with a court order, we do not consider Forte’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[Ijnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after a final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal question marks omitted)).

We reject as unsupported by the record Forte’s contentions that the district judge should have disqualified himself, that the district judge did not consider Forte’s objections to the findings and recommendations, or that the district court committed fraud.

McClatchy Newspapers, Inc., Los Banos Enterprise, Gene Lieb, and Corey Pride’s request for sanctions, set forth in their answering brief, is denied.

Forte’s motions (Docket Entry Nos. 17, 31, 33,107, and 133) are denied.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.