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NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 03 2010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