Court Opinion

ID: 9557993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:01:24.073938+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:06.937270
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 21 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JERRY WAYNE YOUNG,                              No. 22-16496

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00055-DAD-CKD

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PATRICK COVELLO; E. SACKETT; R.
DENNISTAN; WOOLBRIGHT, Sgt.,

                Defendants-Appellees.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding

                           Submitted August 15, 2023**

Before:      TASHIMA, S.R. THOMAS, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Jerry Wayne Young appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging Fourteenth

Amendment claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for

an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order to amend

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
the complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We

affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice

Young’s action because Young failed to file an amended complaint despite being

warned that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)

(district court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to

comply with these rules or a court order”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-62 (setting

forth factors for determining whether an action should be dismissed for failure to

comply with a court order and noting that this court may review the record

independently to determine if the district court abused its discretion).

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                        22-16496