Case Name: Evangelista LUGO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodolfo CARRANZA; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-01
Citations: 195 F. App'x 671
Docket Number: No. 05-15624
Parties: Evangelista LUGO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Rodolfo CARRANZA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
Judges: Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 671–672

Head Matter:
Evangelista LUGO, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Rodolfo CARRANZA; et al., Defendants—Appellees.
No. 05-15624.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2006.
Decided Aug. 1, 2006.
Evangelista Lugo, Oakland, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Roger Carnagey, Oakland, CA, pro se.
Judith J. Loach, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Oakland, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
Joseph C. Howard, Jr., Howard Rome Martin & Ridley, LLP, William E. Smith, Esq., County Counsel’s Office Hall of Justice and Records, Redwood City, CA, Benjamin J. Riley, Esq., William B. Chapman, Esq., Chapman, Popik & White, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.
Before: ALARCÓN, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Evangelista Lugo appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing with prejudice his civil rights action, for repeated failure to comply with the court's orders. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review a dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) for abuse of discretion, Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir.1999), and we affirm.
Because Lugo offers no argument concerning the basis of the district court's final order, or any interlocutory order, he has waived any challenge to the district court's judgment. See Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle, 7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992).
We do not consider issues resolved in earlier district court actions and earlier appeals to this court.
We deny all pending motions as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.