Case ID: f-appx_584/html/0438-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Shannon Lewis AVERY, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G. GONZALES; J. Amaya, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 13-16343.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 22, 2014.
    
    Filed Aug. 1, 2014.
    Shannon Lewis Avery, Sr., Oakland, CA, pro se.
    Ulysses Lorenzo Aguayo, Susan Eileen Coleman, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Emily Yukiko Wada, Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Former California state prisoner Shannon Lewis Avery, Sr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging First and Eighth Amendment violations. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640-41 (9th Cir.2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Avery’s action because Avery failed to prosecute the action and failed to comply with the court’s order to respond to defendants’ written discovery. See id. at 642-43 (discussing five factors relevant to decide whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Avery’s motion for appointment of counsel because Avery failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances. See Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991) (setting forth standard of review and explaining “exceptional circumstances” requirement).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Avery’s motion to transfer venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (providing for transfer to a district where an action might have been brought); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir.2000) (setting forth standard of review); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (listing grounds for venue).

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