Case Name: Clayton L. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-18
Citations: 603 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 13-35964
Parties: Clayton L. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 603
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Clayton L. HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OREGON DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-35964.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 13, 2015.
Filed May 18, 2015.
Clayton L. Howard, Ontario, OR, pro se.
Denise Gale Fjordbeck, Assistant Attorney General, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: LEAVY, CALLAHAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Oregon state prisoner Clayton L. Howard appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims in connection with disciplinary proceedings that resulted in the garnishment of his prison trust account funds. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute, Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice Howard's action for failure to prosecute after Howard failed to respond to defendants' motion to dismiss, despite being ordered to respond and receiving extensions of time to file a response. See id. (discussing factors to guide the court's decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute); see also Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002) (noting dismissal will be disturbed only if there is "a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment" (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Howard's motion for reconsideration because Howard failed to establish grounds for such relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir.1993) (standard of review and grounds for reconsideration).
Because we affirm on the basis of Howard's failure to prosecute, we do not consider Howard's contentions that his claims have merit, or that the district court should have first allowed discovery and argument.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.