Case Name: Maria Caterina ROSENFELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HACKETT, Linn Benton Housing Authority; Linn-Benton Housing Authority, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-18
Citations: 504 F. App'x 646
Docket Number: No. 11-36055
Parties: Maria Caterina ROSENFELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HACKETT, Linn Benton Housing Authority; Linn-Benton Housing Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 504
Pages: 646–647

Head Matter:
Maria Caterina ROSENFELD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James HACKETT, Linn Benton Housing Authority; Linn-Benton Housing Authority, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 11-36055.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2013.
Filed Jan. 18, 2013.
Maria Caterina Rosenfeld, Portland, OR, pro se.
Stephen P. Rickies, Martin W. Jaqua, The Rickies Law Firm PC, Portland, OR, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and NGUYEN, 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
Maria Caterina Rosenfeld appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her action alleging violations of the Fair Housing Amendments Act and state law for failure to prosecute. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir.1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Rosenfeld's action for failure to prosecute after Rosenfeld refused to go forward with trial due to her objections to the district court's evidentia-ry rulings. See id. (discussing factors to guide the court's decision whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute).
Because we affirm the district court's dismissal for failure to prosecute, we do not consider Rosenfeld's challenges to the district court's interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 ("[IJnterlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute[.]").
Rosenfeld's motion to stay proceedings, filed on October 9, 2012, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.