Pamela Snyder v. Bank of America, N.A.

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 6, 2023
• Docket: 21-15350
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 6 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PAMELA MARIE SNYDER, an individual, No. 21-15350

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:15-cv-04228-KAW

v. MEMORANDUM* BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a national association; et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Kandis A. Westmore, Magistrate Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 3, 2023** San Francisco, California

Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, 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). Pamela Marie Snyder appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of

her action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 41(b). We

review dismissal pursuant to those Rules for an abuse of discretion, Yourish v.

California Amplifier, 191 F.3d 983, 986 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.

The district court weighed the five criteria governing dismissals under both

Rules and held that those criteria were in favor of dismissal. Thompson v. Housing

Auth. of L.A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 883

F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987). The district court found that Snyder failed to

comply with deadlines that were repeatedly extended at her request, that

defendants had been prejudiced by having to prepare multiple times for trial due to

continuances, and that less drastic alternative remedies were not feasible given

Snyder’s previous conduct in the litigation. This analysis and the ultimate

dismissal of the action were not an abuse of discretion.

The other interlocutory orders that Snyder identifies in her notice of appeal

are not appealable. Al-Tork v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996)

(“Interlocutory orders, generally appealable after final judgment, are not

appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute, whether the failure to

prosecute is purposeful or a result of negligence or mistake.”).

The motion to file a supplemental brief (Docket No. 39) is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED.