NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK STEVEN SOKOLSKY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. DANIEL MEEKS; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 18

- 15305
D.C. No. 1:13

- cv - 02044

- LJO

- GSA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O'Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 15, 2019 ** San Francisco, California Before: WARDLAW, W. FLETCHER, and LINN, *** Circuit Judges. Mark Sokolsky appeals from the district court ’s order dismissing t his case without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

. We affirm.

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

- 3.

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

*** The Honorable Richard Linn, United States C ircuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation. 

# FILED

DEC 31 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2

1. We may consider Sokolsky’s claim that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing Sokolsky’s case. Although we “will not ordinarily consider matters on appeal that are not specifically and distinctly argued in [the] appellant’s opening brief . . . we may review an issue if the failure to raise the issue properly did not prejudice the defense of the opposing party.” Koerner v. Grigas , 328 F.3d 1039, 1048

– 49 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting U nited States v. Ullah , 976 F.3d 509, 514 (9th Cir. 1992)). Al though Sokolsky’s brief includes j ust a single sentence suggesting the district court abused its discretion, Defendant

- Appellees
do not assert prejudice here

— nor could they

— given that they fully briefed the merits of Sokolsky’s challenge to the district court’s order.
2. The district cou rt properly applied our traditional five

- factor test in
dismiss ing Sokolsky’s case for failure to comply with the court’s order requiring him to respond to the Defendant

- Appellees motion for summary judgment. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza , 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9 th Cir. 2002). Given that at least four factors favor dismissal, we do not find the district court abused its discretion here.
See Yourish v. Cal

. Amplifier , 191 F.3d 983, 99 2 (9th Cir. 1999)

. First, “the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation always favors dismissal.”
Id. at 9 90

. Second, the district court dedicated “large amounts of the court’s valuable time [to Sokolsky’s case] that it could have devoted to other major and
serious criminal and civil cases on its doc ket.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258,3

1261 (9th Cir. 1992)

. Third, there is a risk of prejudice from further delay to the
Defendant

- Appellees

. Pagtalunan , 291 F.3d at 64 2

– 43 . Finally, it is hard to imagine a “ less drastic sanction [than dismissal wi thout prejudice] that was
available to the district court

. ” Carey v. King , 856 F.2d 1439, 1441 (9th Cir. 1988).
3. The district court did not deny Sokolsky his right to counsel. Rather, the
district court repeatedly advised Sokolsky and his counsel as to how his counsel could properly appear in the case. Yet, neither Sokolsky nor his counsel followed
the court’s simple directions . Th us, th e district court act ed fully within its discretion by striking Sokolsky’s attorney’s filings. See Nilsson, Robbi ns, Dalgarn, Berliner, Carson & Wurst v. Louisiana Hydrolec , 854 F.2d 1538, 1547 (9th Cir. 19 8 8). Furthermore, no evidence support s Sokolsky’s assertion that the
district court acted in a biased manner in this case. 4. We deny Sokolsky’s motion for temporary and permanent injunctive
relief. 1
AFFIRMED.

1 Sokolsky’s motion for temporary and permanent injunctive relief refers to events that are alleged to have occurred after the instant appeal was filed. Dkt. 33, 35. Because Sokolsky has not demonstrated that the district court denied his application or o therwise explained why it would be impractical to raise these new claims first in the district court, we deny the motion. Fed. R. App. P. 8 (a) (2)(A).