NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 15 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JONATHAN McALLISTER, Sr., No. 17-17469
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02884-JAT-DMF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAUL PENZONE, Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 12, 2018**
Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Jonathan McAllister, Sr., appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging
constitutional violations in connection with his detention at Maricopa County Jail.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a
dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing McAllister’s
action after McAllister failed to obey the court’s order to file an amended
complaint, because the court had already granted him an extension and warned him
that failure to comply could result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the
five factors for determining whether to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) for
failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th
Cir. 1992) (although dismissal is a harsh penalty, the district court’s dismissal
should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that it “committed a
clear error of judgment” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
Contrary to McAllister’s contention that the district court failed to rule on his
motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint, the district court
denied his motion as moot because it had already sua sponte granted him an
extension.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-17469