Wolf v. Valley

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 30 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW J.J. WOLF, No. 24-4062 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 1:23-cv-00484-AKB v. MEMORANDUM* RANDY VALLEY; RONA SIEGERT,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CORIZON HEALTH CARE SERVICES,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho Amanda K. Brailsford, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 29, 2026**

Before: McKEOWN, TALLMAN, and MENDOZA, JR., Circuit Judges.

Andrew J.J. Wolf, an Idaho state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district

* 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). court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate

indifference to serious medical needs. We 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. Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 2002). We affirm.

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

because Wolf failed to comply with the district court’s order directing him to file

an opposition to defendants’ motions for summary judgment, despite being warned

that failure to do so would result in dismissal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (a district

court may dismiss an action “[i]f the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with

these rules or a court order”); Pagtalunan, 291 F.3d at 641-43 (discussing factors

that courts must consider in determining whether to dismiss for failure to prosecute

or failure to comply with a court order); Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261

(9th Cir. 1992) (explaining that this court may review the record independently if

the district court does not make explicit findings to show its consideration of the

factors).

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

alter or amend the judgment because Wolf failed to demonstrate any basis for

relief. See Dixon v. Wallowa County, 336 F.3d 1013, 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) (setting

forth standard of review and grounds for relief under Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 59).

2 24-4062 In light of our disposition, we do not consider Wolf’s challenges to the

district court’s denial of preliminary injunctive relief or other interlocutory orders.

See SEC v. Mount Vernon Mem’l Park, 664 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1982) (when

district court enters final judgment, appeal from preliminary injunction becomes

moot); see also 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, whether the failure is purposeful or a result of negligence or mistake).

Wolf’s motion (Docket Entry No. 9) for judicial notice is denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-4062