Case Name: Phineas Carletta BOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-22
Citations: 362 F. App'x 867
Docket Number: No. 08-55808
Parties: Phineas Carletta BOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 362
Pages: 867–868

Head Matter:
Phineas Carletta BOLDEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 08-55808.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 2010.
Filed Jan. 22, 2010.
Phineas Carletta Bolden, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Calvin House, Gutierrez Preciado & House, LLP, Pasadena, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, 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
Phineas Carletta Bolden appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b) for failure to comply with a discovery order compelling her deposition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir.1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after find ing that Bolden willfully failed to appear at her deposition despite being ordered to do so and warned that noneompliance could result in dismissal. See Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166-67 (9th Cir.1994) (setting forth factors that a district court must consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a discovery order, and explaining that the district court has wide discretion in determining the location of depositions).
Bolden's remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.