Case Name: Lawrence HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas HAMBLETON; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-06
Citations: 669 F. App'x 477
Docket Number: No. 14-17524
Parties: Lawrence HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas HAMBLETON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 477–477

Head Matter:
Lawrence HICKMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Douglas HAMBLETON; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-17524
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted September 27, 2016
Filed October 6, 2016
Lawrence Hickman, Pro Se
Lynne Sarah Bourgault, Deputy City Attorney, Office of the City Attorney, Berkeley, CA, for Defendants-Appellees
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, 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
Lawrence Hickman appeals pro se from the district court's order dismissing his 42 U.S.C § 1983 action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hickman's action after Hickman failed to comply with court orders and a binding stipulation to arbitrate, despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal. See id. (discussing factors to be considered before dismissing a case for failure to prosecute). Because we affirm the district court's dismissal of Hickman's action for failure to prosecute, we do not consider his 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, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of negligence or mistake." (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.