Williams v. Just

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: September 24, 2025
• Docket: 24-5251
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 24 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

LANCE WILLIAMS, No. 24-5251 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 2:18-cv-00740-KJM-DMC v. MEMORANDUM* D. JUST, Officer,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

T. VILLESCAZ, Officer,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Kimberly J. Mueller, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 17, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, OWENS, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Lance Williams appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

* 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). his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims arising from his custody

in a California prison. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with a

court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). Applied Underwriters,

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

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

because Williams failed to comply with the district court’s order to attend a pretrial

conference and to respond to the court’s order to show cause. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

41(b) (permitting dismissal of an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to

comply with these rules or a court order”); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258,

1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (setting forth factors to consider in determining whether to

dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b)).

In light of our disposition, we do not consider Williams’s contentions

concerning interlocutory orders by the district court. See Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78

F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that interlocutory orders are not

appealable after a dismissal for failure to prosecute).

We do not consider contentions and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-5251