Case ID: f-appx_368/html/0851-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Ivy ANDERSON; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DAVIS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 08-17112.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
    
    Filed March 3, 2010.
    Ivy Anderson, Davis, CA, pro se.
    David Johnson, Davis, CA, pro se.
    Bruce A. Kilday, Susan Ann Denardo, Esquire, J. Scott Smith, Esquire, Douglas R. Thorn, Esquire, Angelo, Kilday And Kilduff a Law Partnership, Sacramento, CA, Allison Goldsmith, Office of the Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ivy Anderson and David Johnson appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as a sanction for failure to comply with the district court’s discovery orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir.1998). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after weighing the relevant factors. See id. at 1057 (listing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss an action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37). Appellants failed to comply with discovery orders despite the district court’s warnings that non-compliance could result in dismissal.

Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

Appellants’ motion filed on September 16, 2009 is denied.

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