FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO HERRERA, No. 13-15872
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:10-cv-01280-GEB-
DAD
v.
BURGETT, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Roberto Herrera appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendant
was deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs by failing to refill his pain
medication prescription. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to comply with a court order,
Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and an order denying a
request for appointment of counsel, Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th
Cir. 1991). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice
Herrera’s action because Herrera failed to comply with the court’s order to submit
timely service documents or present good cause for his failure to do so. See
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642-43 (discussing factors relevant to dismissal for failure
to comply with a court order); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (requiring service
within 120 days after the complaint is filed unless “plaintiff shows good cause for
the failure” to serve); Oyama v. Sheehan (In re Sheehan), 253 F.3d 507, 512 (9th
Cir. 2001) (discussing “good cause”).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Herrera’s motion
for appointment of counsel because Herrera failed to demonstrate exceptional
circumstances. See Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017 (explaining that counsel may only be
appointed in “exceptional circumstances”).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-15872