Musgrove v. Hanifin

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 23, 2025
• Docket: 23-3922
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 23 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IRVIN MUSGROVE, No. 23-3922 D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00614-JO-BLM Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

ANGIE HANIFIN; OCEANSIDE HOUSING AUTHORITY; MARGERY PIERCE; KEYSA MACHADO; SUSANA SANDOVAL-SOTO,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Jinsook Ohta, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 22, 2025**

Before: GRABER, H.A. THOMAS, and JOHNSTONE, Circuit Judges.

Irvin Musgrove appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

his action alleging housing rights violations under federal and state laws. We have

* 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). jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion.

Applied Underwriters, Inc. v. Lichtenegger, 913 F.3d 884, 890 (9th Cir. 2019)

(dismissal for failure to comply with a court order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)); Rio

Props., Inc. v. Rio Int’l Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007, 1022 (9th Cir. 2002) (dismissal as

a discovery sanction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37). We affirm.

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

action because Musgrove failed to comply with discovery-related and other court

orders despite being warned that noncompliance could result in dismissal, and the

district court found that Musgrove’s behavior was willful. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

37(b)(2) (permitting dismissal of action where a party has failed to comply with

court’s discovery orders); Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (district court may dismiss an

action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with these rules or a court

order”); Applied Underwriters, 913 F.3d at 890-91 (setting forth five factors to be

considered before dismissing under Rule 41(b)); In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA)

Prods. Liab. Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1233 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 37 sanctions,

including dismissal, may be imposed where the violation is due to willfulness, bad

faith, or fault of the party.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Rio

Props., 284 F.3d at 1022 (discussing five factors courts must weigh in determining

whether to dismiss under Rule 37(b)).

2 23-3922 We reject as unsupported by the record Musgrove’s contentions that the

district court was biased against him or committed fraud.

We do not consider Musgrove’s challenges to the district court’s

interlocutory orders in light of our disposition. See Al–Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d

1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (where dismissal was a sanction, interlocutory orders

are not appealable).

AFFIRMED.

3 23-3922