Case Name: Brian K. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reed HOLTGEERTS, Director, DAJD; et al., Defendants, and Officer Navejas, RJC and King County Jail, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-29
Citations: 397 F. App'x 405
Docket Number: No. 09-35189
Parties: Brian K. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reed HOLTGEERTS, Director, DAJD; et al., Defendants, and Officer Navejas, RJC and King County Jail, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
Brian K. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Reed HOLTGEERTS, Director, DAJD; et al., Defendants, and Officer Navejas, RJC and King County Jail, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 09-35189.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 22, 2010.
Filed Sept. 29, 2010.
Brian K. Johnson, Leisure City, FL, pro se.
John Cobb, Esquire, King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, Seattle, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS and THOMAS, 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
Our independent review of the record indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Brian K. Johnson's ("Johnson") action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 after Johnson was warned that failure to comply with the district court's pretrial order could result in dismissal of the case, he refused to answer questions at both of his depositions, and he failed to provide relevant arguments in opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss. See Valley Eng'rs Inc. v. Elec. Eng'g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir.1998) (listing factors to consider in determining whether dismissal is proper under Rule 37).
Johnson's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
Johnson's pending motions are denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.