Bryson v. Executive Office for United States Attorneys

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 24 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WILLIAM M. BRYSON, Jr., No. 15-15693 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:13-cv-01979-LJO-MJS v. MEMORANDUM* EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted March 15, 2016** Before: GOODWIN, LEAVY, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges. William M. Bryson, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his Freedom of Information Act action without prejudice for failure to comply with a court order. We have jurisdiction under 28 * 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992), and we affirm. The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Bryson’s action after Bryson failed to respond to an order to show cause regarding missing service documents, despite being warned that failure to comply with the order to show cause would result in dismissal of his action. See id. at 1260-61 (setting forth factors to consider before dismissing an action for failure to comply with a court order). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 2 15-15693