N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT TR AVIS R AY THOM PSON, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. ALVAREZ; e t a l., De fe nda

nts - Appe lle e s. No. 13-17034 D.C . No. 1:07-c v-00572-AW IB AM M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Anthony W . Ishii, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d

Nove m b e r 18, 2014 ** B e fore : LEAVY, FISHER , a nd N.R . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. C a lifornia sta te prisone r Travis R ay

Thom pson a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t c o urt’ s judgm e nt dismissing his 42 U.S.C . § 1983 a c tion a lle ging va rious c onstitutiona

l viola t ions oc c urring a

t thre e diffe re nt prisons aga inst num e rous prison offic ia ls a

nd sta ff ove r a

se ve n-y e ar pe riod. W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28



# F IL ED DEC 04 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).U.S.C . § 1291. W e re v ie w for an a buse of disc re tion a distric t c o urt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to c om

ply with c ourt orde rs. Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th C ir. 2002). W e a ffirm . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing Thom

pson’ s a c tion be c a

use , de spite its wa

rnings, Thom

pson re pe ate dly

fa ile d to c om

p ly with the d istric t c o urt’ s orde rs to c om ply with theple a d ing a

nd joinde r re quire m e nts unde r Fe de ra l R

u le s of C ivil Proc e dure 8, 18, a nd 20. Se e id. at 642 (disc ussing the five fa c tors for de te rm i n ing whe the r to dismiss a c a se for fa ilure to c om

ply with a c o urt orde r). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Thom pson’ s m otion for a

ppointm e nt of c ounse l be c a use Thom pson did not dem o nstra

te e xc e ptiona l c irc um sta

nc e s. Se e Palme r v . Valde z , 560 F.3d 965, 970 (9th C ir. 2009) (se tting forth the

sta nda rd of re vie w a

nd e xpla ining e xc e ptiona l c irc um s ta nc e s re quire m e nt). The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in deny ing Thom pson’ s m otion for pre lim ina

ry injunc tion to tra

nsfe r him into fe de ra l c ustody

be c a use the distric t c ourt la c k e d a

uthority to issuean injunc tion dire c t e d at a non-pa rty . Se e Ze n ith Radio C orp. v . Haze ltine

Re se arc h, Inc ., 395 U.S. 100, 112 (1969) (c onc luding that it wa s e rror to e nte r an

injunc tion a ga inst a non-pa rty ); Allianc e for the W

ild 2 1 3 - 1 7 0 3 4Roc k

ie s v . C ottre ll , 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th C ir. 2011) (se tting forth sta nda rd of re vie w). Thom

pson did not dem onstra

te tha t the lim ite d

e xc e ption to this rule , whic h a llows injunc tions to bind non-pa rtie s who a

re “ in a c tive c onc e rt or pa rtic i pation” with thepa

rtie s , a pplie d. Se e Fe d . R . C iv. P. 65(d)(2)(C ). In light of our c onc lusion re ga rding thedistric t

c ourt’ s dismissa l for fa ilure to c o m ply with c ourt orde rs, we do not c o n side r Thom pson’ s c onte ntions c onc e rning them e rits of his c a se . W e re je c t Thom

pson’ s a rgum e nts re lat ing to judic ia l bia s. Thom pson’ s m otion to a d d ne wly disc ove re d e vide nc e to the re c o rd on a ppe a l, file d on De c e m

be r 4, 2013, is denie d. AFFIRM E D .

3 1 3 - 1 7 0 3 4