Case ID: f-appx_140/html/0721-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jimmy PETERS, Jr., by and through his guardian ad litem, James Peters IV, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. OCEAN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
    No. 04-56638.
    D.C. No. CV-02-04344-LGB.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.
    
    Decided Aug. 4, 2005.
    Charles Appel, Esq., San Bernardino, CA, for Plaintiff — Appellant.
    Bridget A. Flanagan, Esq., Breon, O’Donnell, Miller, Brown & Dannis, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants — Appellees.
    Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Jimmy Peters, Jr., by and through his guardian ad litem, James Peters TV, appeals the district court’s dismissal, for failure to prosecute, of his action alleging that the Ocean View Elementary School District and West Orange County Consortium for Special Education violated his rights under the Individuals with Disabilities. Education Act. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b). Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

In dismissing Peters’ action for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the court’s orders, the district court properly weighed the following factors: (1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits. See id. at 990. We reject Peters’ contention that the district court should have imposed less drastic sanctions because the record demonstrates that the court repeatedly warned Peters about the consequences of his dilatory conduct. See Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.