Court Opinion

ID: 9840713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-19 21:01:06.130293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:53.781997
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        SEP 19 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHIKEB SADDOZAI,                                No.    21-16591

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01611-DAD-HBK

 v.

K. HOSEY, Appeals Coordinator at CCI; M.         MEMORANDUM*
BOUTTE, Appeals Coordinator at CCI,

                Defendants-Appellees.

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

                          Submitted September 12, 2023**

Before:      CANBY, CALLAHAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

      California state prisoner Shikeb Saddozai appeals pro se from the district

court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to prosecute

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We have jurisdiction under 28

U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

      *
             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).
F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Saddozai’s action

because Saddozai failed to file a second amended complaint despite the district

court granting several extensions of time and allowing Saddozai over one year to

do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (a district court may dismiss an action “[i]f the

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court order”);

Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors that courts must consider in

determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a

court order).

      Saddozai’s motion for appointment of counsel (Docket Entry No. 3) is

denied.

      Saddozai’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Entry No. 4) is

denied as unnecessary. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     21-16591