Case Name: Richard Roy SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. West DIAZ, Defendant-Appellee; Richard Roy Scott, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Becky Denny; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Norman Dale Caldwell; et al., Defendants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-08-05
Citations: 286 F. App'x 508
Docket Number: Nos. 05-35405, 05-35414
Parties: Richard Roy SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. West DIAZ, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 508–509

Head Matter:
Richard Roy SCOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. West DIAZ, Defendant-Appellee.
Richard Roy Scott, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Becky Denny; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and Norman Dale Caldwell; et al., Defendants.
Nos. 05-35405, 05-35414.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2008.
Filed Aug. 5, 2008.
Richard Roy Scott, Seattle, WA, pro se.
Timothy Norman Lang, Esq., Donna J. Hamilton, Esq., Jeffrey R. Erwin, Esq., AGWA-Office of the Washington Attorney General, Social & Health Services, Olympia, WA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. Nos. CV-04-05574-RBL, CV-04-05598-RBL.
Before: B. FLETCHER, THOMAS, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Richard Roy Scott appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions as a sanction for failure to comply with court orders and local rules. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir.1986) (per curiam) (dismissal for failure to comply with pretrial procedures mandated by court orders and local rules); De Long v. Hennessey, 912 F.2d 1144, 1146 (9th Cir. 1990) (vexatious litigant order). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Scott's actions for failure to comply with court orders and local rules after warning Scott that noncompliance could result in the dismissal of his actions. See Thompson, 782 F.2d at 831.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by declaring Scott a vexatious litigant. Scott was given notice and opportunity to oppose the pre-filing order, the district court specified Scott's history of frivolous and burdensome filings, and its order was narrowly tailored to remedy Scott's particular abuses. See De Long, 912 F.2d at 1146.
Scott advances no argument challenging the district court's dismissal of the actions or imposition of the vexatious litigant order. See Indep. Towers of Wash. v. Washington, 350 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir.2003) (explaining that issues not argued on appeal are deemed abandoned).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.