Martinez v. Bruce P.

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedOctober 10, 2025

Docket24-1810

StatusUnpublished

This text of Martinez v. Bruce P. (Martinez v. Bruce P.) 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

Martinez v. Bruce P., (9th Cir. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO MARTINEZ, Jr., No. 24-1810 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01134-JLT-SKO Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

BRUCE P., Owner - Porterville Citrus; TONY L., Owner - Porterville Citrus; MARIO, Supervisor - Porterville Citrus; PORTERVILLE CITRUS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Martinez, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging claims related to the mislabeling of produce. We

* 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). 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 and failure to prosecute.

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Martinez’s action

because Martinez failed to comply with the district court’s order to serve

defendants despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining

whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion

to reopen because Martinez failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 59).

Martinez’s motion to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 7) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1810

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

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 10 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTONIO MARTINEZ, Jr., No. 24-1810 D.C. No. 1:22-cv-01134-JLT-SKO Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

BRUCE P., Owner - Porterville Citrus; TONY L., Owner - Porterville Citrus; MARIO, Supervisor - Porterville Citrus; PORTERVILLE CITRUS, INC.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Jennifer L. Thurston, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted August 19, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, HURWITZ, and BADE, Circuit Judges.

Antonio Martinez, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment

dismissing his action alleging claims related to the mislabeling of produce. We

* 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). 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 and failure to prosecute.

Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Martinez’s action

because Martinez failed to comply with the district court’s order to serve

defendants despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal.

See id. at 642-43 (discussing factors that courts must consider in determining

whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a court order).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Martinez’s motion

to reopen because Martinez failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch.

Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (9th

Cir. 1993) (setting forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 59).

Martinez’s motion to transmit physical exhibits (Docket Entry No. 7) is

denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1810

Related

School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation E.J. Bartells Company, a Washington Corporation A.P. Green Refractories Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, and Fibreboard Corp., a Delaware Corporation as Successor in Interest to the Paraffine Companies, Inc., Pabco Products, Inc., Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Plant Rubber & Asbestos Works and Plant Rubber & Asbestos Co., School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Keene Corporation, a New York Corporation Individually and as Successor in Interest to the Baldwin Ehret Hill Company, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Us Gypsum Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Owens-Corning Fiberglass Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Flintkote Company, a Delaware Corporation, School District No. 1j, Multnomah County, Oregon v. Acands, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation Atlas Asbestos Company, Inc., a Canadian Corporation, and Armstrong Cork Company, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

5 F.3d 1255 (Ninth Circuit, 1993)

David P. Pagtalunan v. George Galaza, Warden Thomas Maddock, Acting Director, California Department of Corrections

291 F.3d 639 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Martinez v. Bruce P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martinez-v-bruce-p-ca9-2025.