Case ID: f-appx_645/html/0603-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tony ASBERRY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Matthew CATE, Secretary of Corrections of the C.D.C.R.; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 15-15113.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 15, 2016.
    
    Filed March 24, 2016.
    Tony Asberry, Delano, CA, pro se.
    Neah Huynh, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney' General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tony Asberry, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the imposition of discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir.1997). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Asberry’s action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 87(d) on the basis of As-berry’s failure to appear at a court-ordered deposition because Asberry’s failure to appear was willful, and the district court had imposed monetary sanctions against As-berry for his previous failure to appear and warned Asberry of the possibility of terminating sanctions. See Fed,R.Civ.P. 37(d); Payne, 121 F.3d at 507 (setting forth five factors courts must weigh when dismissing a case for noncompliance with court-ordered discovery under Rule 37 and noting that the noncompliance must be due to “willfulness, fault, or bad faith”).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009).

All pending requests are denied.

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