Case Name: Jennifer Marie JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF QUARTZSITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-30
Citations: 677 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 15-16279
Parties: Jennifer Marie JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF QUARTZSITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 677
Pages: 318–319

Head Matter:
Jennifer Marie JONES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWN OF QUARTZSITE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 15-16279
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 30, 2017
Jennifer Marie Jones, Pro Se .
Larry Jay Crown, Esquire, Attorney, Titus Brueckner & Levine PLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Town of Quartzsite
Larry Jay Crown, Esquire, Attorney, Elan Shai Mizrahi, Titus Brueckner & Levine PLC, Scottsdale, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees Jeffrey Gilbert, Sondra Gayle Gilbert, Rick Paterson, Unknown Paterson, Fabiola Garcia, Unknown Garcia, Joe Winslow, Albert Johnson, Rhonda Johnson, Alexandra Taft
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, 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
Jennifer Marie Jones appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones's action for failure to prosecute where Jones had agreed to the trial date and had been warned that her case would be dismissed if she was not prepared to proceed on the date set for trial. See id. at 1384-85 (discussing the factors the court should consider in evalu ating whether to dismiss a case for failure to prosecute). We reject as unsupported by the record Jones's contention that the district court failed to consider less drastic sanctions.
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal of Jones's action for failure to prosecute, we do not consider her challenges to the district court's interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 ("[Ijnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.