Case ID: f-appx_577/html/0676-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miguel E. DIAZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary SWARTHOUT, Warden; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16318.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 30, 2014.
    Miguel E. Diaz, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Miguel E. Diaz appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation and discrimination claims. 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), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Diaz’s action for failing to comply with the court’s order either to effect timely service upon the two defendants that survived the court’s screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, or file a timely amended complaint, despite being warned that the failure to do so could result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Diaz’s motions for an extension of time because the court had already granted Diaz one extension and Diaz failed to establish good cause for granting further extensions. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-60 (9th Cir.2010) (setting forth standard of review for denial of extension of time and good cause requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)).

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