Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0436-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Andrew STRICK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Doug PITTS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 12-35918.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2014.
    Andrew Strick, Yelm, WA, pro se.
    Daniel John Judge, Senior Counsel, AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judgés.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former Washington state prisoner Andrew Strick appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations arising from his arrest and subsequent incarceration for violations of his community custody. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Strick’s action without prejudice for failure to prosecute in light of Strick’s failure to participate in the proceedings, including his failure to respond to defendants’ proposed joint status report and the district court’s order to show cause why the action should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing factors to guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002) (noting dismissal will be disturbed only if there is “a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

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