Ivy Anderson v. City of Davis

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IVY ANDERSON; et al., No. 08-17112 Plaintiffs - Appellants, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-02321-LKK- GGH v. CITY OF DAVIS; et al., MEMORANDUM * Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence K. Karlton, District Judge, Presiding Submitted February 16, 2010 ** Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Ivy Anderson and David Johnson appeal pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as a sanction for failure to * 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). PDM/Research comply with the district court’s discovery orders. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Valley Eng’rs, Inc. v. Elec. Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1052 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action after weighing the relevant factors. See id. at 1057 (listing factors to consider in determining whether to dismiss an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37). Appellants failed to comply with discovery orders despite the district court’s warnings that non-compliance could result in dismissal. Appellants’ remaining contentions are unpersuasive. Appellants’ motion filed on September 16, 2009 is denied. AFFIRMED. PDM/Research 2 08-17112