NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 26 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID KHAN, No. 20-15202
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-05548-RS
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JUSTIN ROGERS, Sergeant; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,
and
PINOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2021**
Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
David Khan appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing as a
*
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).
discovery sanction and for failure to comply with court orders his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action alleging false arrest and other claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am.
Ins Co., 921 F.3d 803, 821 (9th Cir. 2019) (dismissal as a discovery sanction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37); Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F.3d
983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999) (dismissal for failure to comply with a court order under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Khan’s action
because Khan exhibited a pattern of noncompliance with court orders and engaged
in disruptive and evasive conduct at two depositions. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963
F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors for determining whether
an action should be dismissed as a sanction for failure to comply with a court
order); Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (“We
have repeatedly upheld the imposition of the sanction of dismissal for failure to
comply with pretrial procedures mandated by local rules and court orders.”).
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).
Khan’s motion to transmit exhibit (Docket No. 12) is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 20-15202