Court Opinion

ID: 9556803
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-18 18:01:07.960344+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:31.368464
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       AUG 18 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL HERNANDEZ GONZALEZ,                     No.    22-15905

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 1:19-cv-01447-DAD-BAK

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
H. PEREZ; M. MIMS, Sheriff of Fresno
County at Fresno County Jail; SHARP,
Officer,

                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 Michael Hernandez Gonzalez appeals pro se from

the district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with court orders his

42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging excessive force and failure to protect while

      *
             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).
Gonzalez was a pretrial detainee. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1291.

We review for abuse of discretion, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th

Cir. 2002), and we affirm.

      The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Gonzalez’s

action because, despite multiple, explicit warnings, Gonzalez failed to comply with

orders instructing him to cease filing duplicative and baseless motions. See id. at

642-43 (discussing the five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(b) for failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963

F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district

court’s dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction”

that it “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks

omitted)).

      All pending motions and requests are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                   22-15905