FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON RAISER, No. 14-55615
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 5:11-cv-00465-RGK-RZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CITY OF UPLAND,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 14, 2016**
Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Aaron Raiser appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging various violations arising out of his
encounters with the Upland Police Department. 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 and denies Raiser’s request for oral argument, set forth in
his opening and reply briefs. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
prosecute. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.
Raiser fails to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his action for failure
to prosecute, and has therefore waived any such challenge. See Smith v. Marsh,
194 F.3d 1045, 1052 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party
in its opening brief are deemed waived.”). Because Raiser’s action was dismissed
for failure to prosecute, we do not consider his challenges to the district court’s
interlocutory orders denying his motion for relief from the order denying his
application to proceed in forma pauperis, or his motion to change the filing date of
his complaint. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (if the dismissal is for failure to
prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether the failure
to prosecute was purposeful or the result of negligence or mistake).
We reject as without merit Raiser’s contention regarding the district court’s
alleged lack of jurisdiction over his complaint following his payment of the filing
fee.
Raiser’s motion for miscellaneous relief, filed on April 29, 2015, is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 14-55615