Aaron Stribling v. Cdcr

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 23, 2019
• Docket: 18-17314
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 23 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AARON L. STRIBLING, AKA Aaron No. 18-17314 Lamont Stribling, D.C. No. 4:18-cv-03479-JSW Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Aaron Stribling, AKA Aaron Lamont Stribling,

appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

action alleging various constitutional violations. We have jurisdiction under 28

* 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). U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to

comply with a court order. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.

1992). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Stribling’s action

because Stribling failed to file an amended complaint or to indicate that he

intended to stand on the original complaint. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356

F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004) (“The failure of the plaintiff eventually to respond

to the court’s ultimatum—either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the

court that it will not do so—is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b)

dismissal.”); Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (setting forth the five factors to be

weighed when considering dismissal for failure to comply with a court order, and

stating the district court is not required to make explicit findings, rather we may

review the record independently).

AFFIRMED.