Case Name: Edward DEMERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. CARTAGENA, Lieutenant; et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-01-28
Citations: 632 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 14-15174
Parties: Edward DEMERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. CARTAGENA, Lieutenant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 632
Pages: 423–424

Head Matter:
Edward DEMERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L. CARTAGENA, Lieutenant; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-15174.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 20, 2016.
Filed Jan. 28, 2016.
Edward Demerson, Los Angeles, CA, pro se.
Kevin Allen Voth, Deputy Attorney General, California Department of Justice, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, 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
Edward Demerson; a former California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to file a pretrial statement. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1226 (9th Cir.2006). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Demerson's action because Demerson failed to comply with the district court's scheduling order and the relevant factors weigh in favor of dismissal. See id. at 1226-29 (discussing factors for determining whether to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order, and noting that Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(f) permits a judge "to make such orders as are just for a party's failure to obey a scheduling or pretrial order, including dismissal").
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).
Demerson's motions, filed on November 5, 2014 and November 23, 2015, are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.