NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 29 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CHRIS GRINDLING, No. 20-16254
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:20-cv-00206-JAO-KJM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
DEREK KAAUKAI,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
Jill Otake, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 21, 2021**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.
Chris Grindling appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional violations. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
dismissal for failure to comply with a court order. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d
*
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).
639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Grindling’s
action because Grindling failed to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis
or pay the filing fee by the deadline set by the district court, and the district court
warned him that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See id. at 640, 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 Grindling’s
motions for reconsideration because Grindling failed to establish any basis for
relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,
1263 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for
reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)).
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).
AFFIRMED.
2 20-16254
Chris Grindling v. Derek Kaaukai
Combined Opinion