Huifang Zhang v. USA

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: November 26, 2024
• Docket: 22-56191
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS NOV 26 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HUIFANG ZHANG, on behalf of I.G. and No. 22-56191 D.G.; TOSHIYUKI TAKAHASHI, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-05843-RGK-KS Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION; KEVIN K. McALEENAN, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the US Department of Homeland Security, in his official capacity as Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 20, 2024**

Before: CANBY, TALLMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

* 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). Huifang Zhang and Toshiyuki Takahashi appeal pro se from the district

court’s order dismissing for failure to prosecute their Federal Tort Claims Act

action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of

discretion. Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing appellants’

action after they failed to appear for the scheduling conference and then failed to

appear for the subsequent show cause hearing. See Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291

F.3d 639, 642-43 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing the factors to be considered in

determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute and stating that this court

may independently review the record if the district court has not made explicit

findings). We reject as meritless appellants’ contentions that the district court

violated the Constitution, ethical canons, and local rules by refusing to permit

appellants to appear remotely.

Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal of appellants’ action for

failure to prosecute, we do not consider appellants’ challenges to the district

court’s interlocutory orders. See Al-Torki, 78 F.3d at 1386 (“[I]nterlocutory orders,

generally appealable after final judgment, are not appealable after a dismissal for

failure to prosecute, whether the failure to prosecute is purposeful or is a result of

negligence or mistake.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

The district court properly denied as moot appellants’ motions for

2 22-56191 declaratory relief and for reassignment because the action had already been

dismissed. See Rocky Mountain Farmers Union v. Corey, 913 F.3d 940, 949 (9th

Cir. 2019) (standard of review).

We reject as unsupported by the record appellants’ contention that the

district judge was biased against them.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 22-56191