NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT OCT 07 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
DELMO FIGURA TORREFRANCA, No. 10-17693
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01527-PGR
v.
MEMORANDUM *
CHARLES L. RYAN; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Paul G. Rosenblatt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2011 **
Before: HAWKINS, SILVERMAN, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Delmo Figura Torrefranca, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from
district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action
alleging constitutional violations by various prison officials. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for
*
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. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d
1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1991). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Torrefranca’s
action without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Torrefranca failed to serve
the two defendants that survived the court’s screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see also Henderson, 779 F.2d at 1423 (listing factors to
guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)); see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 4(m).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not
consider Torrefranca’s challenges to the district court’s interlocutory orders. See
Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (after dismissal for
failure to prosecute, interlocutory orders are not appealable whether or not failure
to prosecute was purposeful).
Torrefranca’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
2 10-17693