Case Name: Dominique BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAIN LIBRARY; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-30
Citations: 584 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 13-15131
Parties: Dominique BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAIN LIBRARY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
Dominique BAKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAIN LIBRARY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 13-15131.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 22, 2014.
Filed July 30, 2014.
Dominique Baker, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
Dennis C. Bastron, Pima County Attorney’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, CANBY, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Dominique Baker appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his action alleging violations of various federal rights arising from his attempt to borrow interlibrary loan materials. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with the local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Baker's claims against the Main Library defendants for failure to comply with the local rules because the district court warned Baker that failure to oppose the motion to dismiss would result in the motion being granted. Rather than file an opposition, Baker resubmitted his complaint and other unresponsive documents. See D. Ariz. Loc. R. 7.2(i) (failure to file an opposition "may be deemed a consent to the . granting of the motion and the Court may dispose of the motion summarily"). Moreover, the balance of factors favored dismissal. See Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 53-54 (listing the factors to be weighed before dismissing an action for failure to follow the local rules, noting that pro se litigants are bound by the rules, and affirming the dismissal of a pro se plaintiff's civil rights action for failure to file a timely opposition to defendant's motions to compel and to dismiss).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.