FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 24 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL LENOIR SMITH, No. 11-17466
Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01257-GEB-
CKD
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; et al., MEMORANDUM *
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 10, 2012 **
Before: WARDLAW, CLIFTON, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Michael Lenior Smith, a California 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
*
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).
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for
failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d
1421, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Smith’s action
without prejudice for failure to prosecute because Smith failed to file an amended
pretrial statement by the deadline set by the district court. See id. (listing factors to
guide the court’s decision whether to dismiss under Rule 41(b)).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b), we do not
consider Smith’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 regardless of whether failure to
prosecute was purposeful).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17466