FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JAN 22 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PHINEAS CARLETTA BOLDEN, No. 08-55808
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:06-cv-07729-AG-AJW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF; et
al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Andrew J. Guilford, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010 **
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Phineas Carletta Bolden appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment
dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
*
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).
JS/Research
37(b) for failure to comply with a discovery order compelling her deposition. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion,
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after
finding that Bolden willfully failed to appear at her deposition despite being
ordered to do so and warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal. See
Hyde & Drath v. Baker, 24 F.3d 1162, 1166-67 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth
factors that a district court must consider before dismissing an action for failure to
comply with a discovery order, and explaining that the district court has wide
discretion in determining the location of depositions).
Bolden’s remaining contentions are unavailing.
AFFIRMED.
JS/Research 2 08-55808