NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 16 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KEVEN HUTSON, No. 17-15101
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:16-cv-01921-DGC
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ME CAPITAL LLC; et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Keven Hutson appeals pro se from the district court’s order dismissing
his action alleging federal claims arising out of a foreclosure. 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 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).
failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640
(9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Hutson’s action
without prejudice after Hutson failed to comply with the district court’s orders
regarding preparation for the pre-trial conference, and failed to appear at the
pretrial conference, despite being warned that failure to comply with court orders
may result in dismissal. See id. at 642-43 (discussing the five factors for
determining whether to dismiss for failure to comply with a court order and noting
that dismissal should not be disturbed absent “a definite and firm conviction” that
the district court “committed a clear error of judgment” (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted)).
The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hutson’s motion
for reconsideration because Hutson failed to establish any basis for
reconsideration. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5
F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds
for reconsideration).
We reject as meritless Hutson’s contentions that the district court was
required to first address the issue of personal jurisdiction and had no authority to
2 17-15101
act until service was complete.
AFFIRMED.
3 17-15101