Case Name: Nicholas GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOKANE COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-15
Citations: 569 F. App'x 529
Docket Number: No. 12-36074
Parties: Nicholas GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOKANE COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 529–530

Head Matter:
Nicholas GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPOKANE COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 12-36074.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted April 7, 2014.
Filed April 15, 2014.
• Nicholas Garcia, Alhambra, CA, pro se.
Heather C. Yakely, Evans, Craven & Lackie, P.S., Spokane, WA, Stanley A. Bastían, Kristin Ferrera, Jeffers Danielson Sonn & Aylward, P.S., Wenatchee, WA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, 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
Nicholas Garcia appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations during his detention at Spokane County Jail. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with court orders, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir.2002), and we reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed this action, in part, because Garcia failed to provide witness and exhibit lists and because Garcia failed to appear at the pre-trial conference. However, as to the first reason, Garcia did provide lists of his proposed witnesses and exhibits in his pre-trial report, albeit not at the time and in the format requested by the district court. As to the second, Garcia provided an excuse as to why he was not at the pre-trial conference. Under these circumstances, we conclude that dismissal was an abuse of discretion. See id. at 642-43 (listing factors to consider before dismissing for failure to comply with a court order); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 272, 273 (9th Cir.1992) ("Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, it should be imposed as a sanction only in extreme circumstances."). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Garcia's motion to add district court documents to the appellate record, filed on September 5, 2013, is granted.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.