Case Name: Gilbert Israel SERRANO, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.B. ROMO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-25
Citations: 444 F. App'x 974
Docket Number: No. 10-15923
Parties: Gilbert Israel SERRANO, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.B. ROMO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 444
Pages: 974–974

Head Matter:
Gilbert Israel SERRANO, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. C.B. ROMO, Correctional Officer; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 10-15923.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 12, 2011.
Filed July 25, 2011.
Gilbert Israel Serrano, Sr., Folsom, CA, pro se.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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
California state prisoner Gilbert Israel Serrano, Sr. appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging claims for denial of due process and inadequate medical care. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Serrano's action after he obtained extensions and clarifications but failed to comply with two orders requiring him to file an amended complaint or face dismissal. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) (allowing dismissal of action for failure to prosecute or comply with court orders); see also Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (fist-ing factors to guide decision about whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)). Dismissal followed the court's exploration of less drastic alternatives, and, under the circumstances, served both the public's interest in expeditiously resolving litigation and the court's interest in managing its docket. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1262-63 (dismissal appropriate where three out of five factors strongly support it).
Serrano'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.