NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 26 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SUSAN MAE POLK, No. 17-17111
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00728-DAD-
BAM
v.
PITTMAN, Correctional Officer; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dale A. Drozd, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 22, 2018**
Before: SILVERMAN, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Susan Mae Polk appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional
claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of
discretion. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002) (failure to
*
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).
comply with court orders); Nevijel v. N. Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th
Cir. 1981) (failure to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 8). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Polk’s action
because Polk failed to comply with the district court’s orders despite multiple
warnings to comply with the federal pleading and joinder requirements. See
Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 642 (discussing the five factors for determining whether
to dismiss a case for failure to comply with a court order); see also Fed. R. Civ. P.
8, 18, 20. Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying
Polk’s motions to join claims and to supplement the fourth amended complaint
because the motions further demonstrated Polk’s failure to comply with the court’s
orders regarding an amended complaint. Contrary to Polk’s contention, the district
court was not required to direct defendants to proceed on her Eighth Amendment
claim, where Polk chose not to proceed on that claim alone.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Polk’s motion for
disqualification because Polk failed to establish extrajudicial bias or prejudice. See
28 U.S.C. § 455 (circumstances requiring recusal); Clemens v. U.S. Dist. Court,
428 F.3d 1175, 1178 (9th Cir. 2005) (test for disqualification under § 455(a)).
We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued
in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-17111