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NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 14 2014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
EDWARD CHARLES JOHNSON, No. 13-15367
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 4:11-cv-00567-FRZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
LEANNE HARTER; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Frank R. Zapata, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 7, 2014**
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Edward Charles Johnson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing for failure to comply with a court order his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging a violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion.
*
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).
Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992). We reverse and remand.
The district court dismissed Johnson’s action with prejudice after Johnson
failed to comply with a court order directing him to include in his amended
complaint a description of his previous lawsuits, including the parties, court, case
number, and result. Johnson, however, provided in a supplement to his amended
complaint and in his motion to reconsider sufficient case information for the court
to review his previous lawsuits. Moreover, less drastic alternative sanctions would
be appropriate in this case. Thus, fewer than three out of five factors weighed in
favor of dismissal. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir.
2002) (discussing factors for dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and affirming
dismissal where three out of five factors supported it); Oliva v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d
272, 273 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Because dismissal is a harsh penalty, it should be
imposed as a sanction only in extreme circumstances.”). Accordingly, we reverse
and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
2 13-15367