Melvin Keakaku Amina, husband; DONNA MAE AMINA, wife v. Wmc Mortgage Corp.;

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MELVIN KEAKAKU AMINA, husband;
DONNA MAE AMINA, wife,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
WMC MORTGAGE CORP.; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 12-15521
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00165-JMS-
KSC
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 21, 2014**
Before: CANBY, SILVERMAN, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Melvin Keakaku Amina and Donna Mae Amina appeal pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing their action alleging federal and state law
claims arising from foreclosure proceedings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
FILED
JAN 28 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 3 --

§ 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a dismissal for failure to prosecute,
Al-Torki v. Kaempen, 78 F.3d 1381, 1384 (9th Cir. 1996), and we affirm.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing with prejudice
the Aminas’ action because the Aminas failed to provide a reasonable explanation
for their repeated failure to file necessary pleadings, appear at multiple court
hearings, and respond to the court’s orders to show cause despite being warned that
their action could be dismissed. See id. at 1384-85 (setting forth factors relevant to
dismissal for failure to prosecute under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and declining to set
aside dismissal with prejudice absent support for plaintiff’s argument that his
failure to appear at trial was due to a mistake or a misunderstanding).
Because we affirm the district court’s dismissal for failure to prosecute, we
do not consider the Aminas’ various challenges to certain of the district court’s
interlocutory orders. See id. at 1386 (after a dismissal for failure to prosecute,
interlocutory orders are not appealable regardless of whether the failure to
prosecute was purposeful or negligent).
The Aminas’ contentions that they fully briefed the district court when they
missed some hearings; that their failure to appear did not prevent a resolution of
the action or deprive defendants of the opportunity to cross-examine them since
none of the missed hearings were “evidentiary;” that they have a right to remain
12-15521 2

-- 2 of 3 --

silent; and that the consequence of missing a hearing should be limited to a waiver
of the right to oral argument, are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.
12-15521 3

-- 3 of 3 --