Case Name: Neale E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DPS Officer JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-25
Citations: 324 F. App'x 549
Docket Number: No. 07-15005
Parties: Neale E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DPS Officer JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 324
Pages: 549–549

Head Matter:
Neale E. SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DPS Officer JOHNSON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-15005.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 13, 2008.
Filed Nov. 25, 2008.
Neale E. Smith, Tucson, AZ, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Georgia A. Staton, Jones Skelton & Ho-chuli, PLC, Phoenix, AZ, Roger W. Perry, Jr., Attorney General’s Office, Tucson, AZ, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, 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
Neale E. Smith appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his civil rights action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) for failure to comply with a discovery order. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Payne v. Exxon Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 507 (9th Cir.1997), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action in light of Smith's refusal to answer the defendants' questions concerning his arrest. See Lyons v. Johnson, 415 F.2d 540, 542 (9th Cir.1969) (upholding dismissal of civil rights action where plaintiff "bloek[ed] all discovery attempts against him by asserting a Fifth Amendment privilege to any interrogation whatsoever upon his claim").
Smith's remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.