Case Name: Katherine Avilla OWEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL and Does, 1 through 30, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-12
Citations: 453 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 10-55612
Parties: Katherine Avilla OWEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL and Does, 1 through 30, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 728–728

Head Matter:
Katherine Avilla OWEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF IMPERIAL and Does, 1 through 30, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-55612.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 27, 2011.
Filed Oct. 12, 2011.
Katherine Avilla Owen, San Diego, CA, pro se.
Michael Jesse Perez, Esquire, Managing Partner, Perez & Wilson LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SILVERMAN, W. FLETCHER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Katherine Avilla Owen appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and state law in connection with her arrest by the County of Imperial. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action, without prejudice, after weighing the relevant factors. See id. at 496 (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure to prosecute).
We do not consider Owen's contentions concerning the district court's orders denying her motion for recusal and awarding sanctions to defendants. See id. at 497-98 (interlocutory orders are not appealable after dismissal for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.