T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T A RTH U R J . W H EELER, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. T E R R I B L E H E R B S T I N C ., D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 16486 D. C . No . 2 : 1 0 - c v - 0 0 8 6 6 - GMNP AL ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

N e va da G l or i aM . N a va rr o, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d N ove m be r13, 2012 ** B efo re: C A N B Y , T R O T T , an d W . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A rthurJ . W he e l e rappe a l s pr o s e f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s j udgm e nt d is m is s in g h is T itle V I I a c tio n a lle g in g r a c ia l d is c r im in a tio n a n d r e ta lia tio n . W e h av e ju risd icti o n u n d er2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r ev iew d e n o v o a d istrict co u rt’s 

# FI LED NO V 19 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS11- 16486 2 d is m is s a l f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im . Kn i e v e l v . ES PN, 3 9 3 F .3 d 1 0 6 8 , 1 0 7 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) . W e r e v ie w f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n ad is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to c o m p ly w ith ac o u rt o r d e ro ralo c a l ru le . P a g ta lu n a n v. G a la za , 2 9 1 F .3 d 6 3 9 , 6 4 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 2 ) ; G haz al iv . Mor an , 4 6 F .3 d 5 2 , 5 3 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . W e r e ve r s e a nd r e m a nd. T o th e e x te n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e d W h e e le r ’s a c tio n f o rf a ilu r e to s t a t e ac l a i m , the di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on bydi s m i s s i ng W he e l e r ’ s a c t i on w i th p re j ud i ce and w i tho utan op po rtun i ty t o am end b ec ause W heel erw as pr oc e e di ng pr o s e , he i ndi c a t e d tha the ha d r e c e nt l yobt a i ne d c ouns e l , a nd i ti s not c le a rth a t h is c o m p la in t c o u ld n o t b e c u r e d b ya m e n d m e n t. See Flo w ers v. Fi rst H aw ai i an B ank , 295 F . 3d 966, 976 ( 9th C i r . 2002) ( not i ng s t a nda r d of r e vi e w a nd thatthi s c ou rti s “ verycaut i ou s i n app rovi ng a di stri ctcourt ’ s dec i si on t o d eny pro se l i t i gant s l ea ve t o am end”). T o th e e x te n t th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s e d W h e e le r ’s a c tio n w ith prej ud i ce for f

ai l ure t o com pl y w i th a courtorder or a l ocal rul e, the di stri ctcourt ab u s e d its d is c r e tio n b e c au s e th e c o u rt f a ile d to c o n s id e rle s s d r a s tic a lte rn a tiv e s . Se e P agtalunan , 291 F . 3d a t642- 43 ( l i s t i ng f a c t or s t o c ons i de rbe f

or e di s m i s s i ng for f ai l ure t o com pl y w i th a courtorder and expl ai ni ng thatw arni ng of di sm i ss al f o rf a ilu r e to c o m p lyp r io rto d is o b e d ie n c e o f th e c o u rt o r d e rd idn o t c o n s titu te11- 16486 3 consi dera t i on of l es s dra st i c a l t ernat i ves) ; Ferdi k v . B on ze let , 963 F . 2d 1258, 1260 ( 9th C i r . 1992) ( “ [ D ] i s m i s s a l i s aha r s h pe na l tya nd, the r e f or e , i ts houl d onl ybe i m po se d i n extre m e c i rc um st ance s. ”) . M oreover, W heel er ’ s vi ol at i on s, such as f i l i ng hi s pr o s e oppos i t i on t o the m ot i on t o di s m i s s f i ve da y s l a t e , di d not p r e ju d ic e d e f

e n d a n t o rim p e d e th e c o u rt’s ab ilityto m a n a g e its d o c k e t. See G h a z a li , 4 6 F .3 d a t 5 3 ( lis tin g f a c to r s to c o n s id e rb e f

o r e d is m is s in g f

o rf a ilu r e to com pl y w i th a l ocal rul e) ; M alon e v . U

. S. P ostalServ . , 83 3 F . 2d 12 8, 13 1 (9th C i r. 1987) ( “ I n de t e rm i ni ng w he the rade f e nda ntha s be e n pr e

j udi c e d, w e e xa m i ne w he the rthe pl a i nt i f

f’ s a c t i ons i m pa i rthe de f e nda nt ’ s abi l i tyt o go t o tr i a l or th r e a te n to in te r f

e r e w ith th e r ig h tf

u l d e c is io n o f

th e c a s e .” ) . A c c o r d in g ly , w e r e v e r s e a n d r e m a n d f o rf u rth e rp r o c e e d in g s c o n s is te n t w ith o u rd is p o s itio n . RE V E RS E D a n d RE MAND E D.