NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
AARON L. STRIBLING, AKA Aaron No. 18-17314
Lamont Stribling,
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-03479-JSW
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 21, 2019**
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Aaron Stribling, AKA Aaron Lamont Stribling,
appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to
comply with a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.
1992). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Stribling’s action
because Stribling failed to file an amended complaint or to indicate that he
intended to stand on the original complaint. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356
F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond
to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the
court that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b)
dismissal.”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (setting forth the five factors to be
weighed when considering dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, and
stating the district court is not required to make explicit findings, rather we may
review the record independently).
AFFIRMED.
2