Case Name: James H. JONES, Sr.; Audrae R. Jones, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-10
Citations: 420 F. App'x 740
Docket Number: No. 09-56807
Parties: James H. JONES, Sr.; Audrae R. Jones, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 420
Pages: 740–741

Head Matter:
James H. JONES, Sr.; Audrae R. Jones, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 09-56807.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
Filed March 10, 2011.
James H. Jones, Sr., Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Audrae R. Jones, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, 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
James H. Jones, Sr., and Audrae R. Jones appeal pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute. Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 495 (9th Cir.1984). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action without prejudice because the Joneses failed to file an amended complaint after being given adequate time to do so and being warned twice that failure to do so may result in dismissal. See id. at 496-97 (listing factors to consider before dismissing an action for lack of prosecution and explaining that "[a] relatively brief period of delay is sufficient to justify" a dismissal without prejudice for failure to prosecute).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.