NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DEMETRIUS A. WILSON,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

DAVID SHINN, Director; CENTURION HEALTH OF ADOC; STATE OF ARIZONA; PACHECO, Tucson Complex Warden Pacheco, sued in both individual and official capacity; NEIL, ADW, Whetstone Unit, sued in both individual and official capacity; JOSEFOWICZ, DW/Whetstone Unit, sued in both individual and official capacity; MARTINEZ, named as DW Martinez/Whetstone Unit, sued in both
indiv idual and official capacity; SUSANNA C. PINEDA, Honorable, Superior Court of Maricopa County, sued in both individual and official capacity; BRASCHLER, named as Assistant Deputy Warden Braschler, sued in both individual and official capacity; PULICICCHIO, Captain, sued in both individual and official capacity; ROJAS, SSU, C.O. II #5695, sued in both individual and official capacity; GALAVIZ, Sgt. #9368, sued in both individual and official capacity; WINN NGUYEN, #9591, sued in both
individual and official c apacity; F. MAJALCA, #9626, sued in both individual No. 21

- 16180

D.C. No. 4:20

- cv

- 00416

- RCC

MEMORANDUM *

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3. 

# FILED

FEB 25 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 16180

and official capacity; M. JASSO, Lt., sued in both individual and official capacity; CHRISTINA L. AABERG, Disciplinary Hearing Officer at Arizona Department of Corrections, sued in both individual and
off icial capacity,

Defendants

- Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona

Raner C. Collins, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 15, 2022 * * San Francisco, California

Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Arizona state prisoner Demetrius A. Wilson appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment di smissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging retaliation,

deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, unconstitutional conditions of

confinement, and due process claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discre tion a dismissal under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v.

Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Wilson’s action

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).3 21

- 16180

because Wilson failed to respond timely to the district court’s order to amend the

complaint despite being warned failure to comply would result in dismissal. See

id. at 642

- 43 (discussing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss for

failure to comply with a court order and noting that dismissal should not be

disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court “committed

a clear error of judgmen t” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

We do not consider Wilson’s contentions relating to his motion for

reconsideration because that issue is outside the scope of this appeal.

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly rais ed and argued

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright , 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

All pending requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.