NOT FOR PUBLICATION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 

individual 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 capacity; 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 APPEALS
2 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 

official 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 dismissing 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 discretion 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 judgment” (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 raised 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.