Jones v. Fields

Ninth Circuit

Jones v. Fields

146 F. App'x 224

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 19, 2005

DocketNo. 04-16927; D.C. No. CV-03-02790-JF

StatusPublished

This text of 146 F. App'x 224 (Jones v. Fields) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Fields, 146 F. App'x 224 (9th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Alberta Rose Jones appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Monterey [225]*225County Superior Court Judge Michael Fields, the City of Pacific Grove, and various local officials, alleging that her due process rights were violated in the course of animal abatement proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to follow a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’ action for failure to file a timely second amended complaint as ordered by the court. See id. at 1260-62. The district court granted numerous extensions of time to file a second amended complaint and warned Jones that failure to file by the date ordered would result in dismissal. The record does not support Jones’ contention that she somehow reserved the right to stand on her first amended complaint. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064-65 (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.”).

Jones’ remaining contentions lack merit.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Alberta Rose Jones appeals pro se the district court’s order dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Monterey [225]*225County Superior Court Judge Michael Fields, the City of Pacific Grove, and various local officials, alleging that her due process rights were violated in the course of animal abatement proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to follow a court order, Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir.1992), and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Jones’ action for failure to file a timely second amended complaint as ordered by the court. See id. at 1260-62. The district court granted numerous extensions of time to file a second amended complaint and warned Jones that failure to file by the date ordered would result in dismissal. The record does not support Jones’ contention that she somehow reserved the right to stand on her first amended complaint. See Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058, 1064-65 (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.”).

Jones’ remaining contentions lack merit.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 F. App'x 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-fields-ca9-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack