FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 15 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PETER MICHAEL PALMER, No. 11-15486
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:10-cv-08209-JAT
v.
MEMORANDUM *
GLENN A. SAVONA; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
James A. Teilborg, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 6, 2012 **
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Peter Michael Palmer appeals pro se from the district court’s order
dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging malicious prosecution and abuse of
process for failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute. We have
*
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).
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion. Ferdik
v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (failure to comply with court
orders); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986) (failure to
prosecute). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action
without prejudice because Palmer failed to respond to its order requiring him to
provide information to the clerk’s office necessary to effectuate service of process,
failed to respond to the court’s order to show cause, and failed to appear at the
show cause hearing. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (listing factors to consider);
Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 132-33 (9th Cir. 1987) (consideration
of alternative sanctions can include a warning that failure to comply with court
order could lead to dismissal); Ash v. Cvetkov, 739 F.2d 493, 496-97 (9th Cir.
1984) (dismissal for lack of prosecution was not an abuse of discretion even after
relatively short period of delay, particularly where the dismissal was without
prejudice).
We decline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal, including
Palmer’s challenge to the district court’s order directing service of process by the
U.S. Marshal. See United States v. Alisal Water Corp., 370 F.3d 915, 923 (9th Cir.
2004) (noting general rule that courts of appeal will not consider arguments raised
2 11-15486
for the first time on appeal).
AFFIRMED.
3 11-15486